Understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I would also ask in what sense Christ can be said to become sanctified.

:ditto:

Is not sanctification a process redeemed sinners undergo?
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Sure, Mal. 4:5-6 is speaking of John the Baptist. That's not the issue. What do the words mean? Why are they there? It's as if we are picking out the term "Elijah" and the rest of the words are meaningless? Why be satisfied with the excessively general interpretation: "He's calling Israel back to God"? There is more to it than that...
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I would also ask in what sense Christ can be said to become sanctified.

Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?

Blessings,

Martin
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I would also ask in what sense Christ can be said to become sanctified.

Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?

Blessings,

Martin

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. -John 3:19 (ESV)

Are you saying Christ becomes sanctified by coming into the world (incarnation)?
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by Mocha
Again, I don't think you can use Mal. 4:5-6 to prove your point.

Mike
Mike,

I think if one is looking for ways to explain away passages, one will find a way.

One of the things the Scriptures repeatedly lament is that fathers have not taught their children or that children turn away from the faith of their fathers. Either way it is viewed as a curse where seeing your children's children call on the name of the Lord is a blessing.

I intended to prove nothing. It is merely one more piece that falls more naturally into a Covenantal framework and one more piece that has to be refit to work within the credo framework.

You keep trying to convince me that because Christ's ministry is "better" or "more perfect" that children are somehow an inherent imperfection in the Old Covenant. I can understand that idea in a man who has no children and has not prayed with his infant children. I cannot understand how a father can read the Scriptures, see the loving language of the Proverbs or the Psalms, and the joy expressed in the spiritual blessing of children and then say that children in the Covenant were an imperfection.

Yes the Covenant was improved. It was expanded beyond Judea. Yes, some branches were pruned. Yes, there was neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, slave nor free anymore in Christ Jesus. No man could puff his chest out and say "God loves me more because I descend physically from Abraham."

BUT I also believe the promises to a father and his children were improved as well. When a shoot is grafted into a tree it begins to generate and branch out from the moment it is grafted in and receives life. The New Covenant is not merely more excellent because new shoots are being grafted in much more (and from more nations) than before but also because the shoots that are grafted are more productive.

It is not an EITHER OR but it is BOTH AND. I agree that the Covenant has been improved as every man and woman receives the Spirit, the Gospel spreads from Jew to God-fearer to Samaritan to Gentile, AND fathers and their children are drawn closer together and apostasy occurs with less regularity than in the old covenant so that we can rejoice at the blessing of seeing our grandchildren calling on the name of the Lord.

What is remarkable about this discussion is that I would challenge any credo-Baptist to use the idea expressed to any man whose 18 year old son has just spit in his face and told him that he hates God. Minister to him with the idea that "After all, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. Your son's apostasy is not a curse at all. It is an improvement in the Covenant that your son now hates God."

God forbid any man comfort a grieving father with such words and yet, in theological musings divorced from their practical implications, we can talk about children as if they were always some sort of disposable element of the Covenant.

How sad...
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I would also ask in what sense Christ can be said to become sanctified.

Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?

Blessings,

Martin

John 3:19 (ESV) states "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I honestly do not see how that applies to the notion of Jesus somehow becoming sanctified.
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
I would also ask in what sense Christ can be said to become sanctified.

Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?

Blessings,

Martin

John 3:19 (ESV) states "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I honestly do not see how that applies to the notion of Jesus somehow becoming sanctified.

Doh! I meant John 17:19. Sorry!

Martin
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
John 17:19
And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

Sancitification is not always used as if the person being "sanctified" is in need of salvation. It means other things too, even as the verse in 1 Cor 7:14 proves.



[Edited on 12-29-05 by pastorway]
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Better indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love' (Gal 5:6 ).

Martin

Martin,

I don't know if you realize how your interpretations reinforce to me how cold Calvinism is without Covenant theology.

Rich, I'm sorry that you find love and the New Birth leave you cold, but that is your problem.
What does the prophet mean when he states that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to their children and children to fathers as a promise in the Day of the Lord?

Precisely what he says, but it has nothing to do with circumcision or baptism unless you decide to read it in.
You seem to delight in any idea that would mean our children are no different than the children of pagans. It seems you have to remain coldly rational to be consistent and avoid any delight that God gives us in the promises He made to the OT saints regarding their children.

The glory of the Gospel is that 'Christ died for the ungodly' and that He came 'Not to call the righteous but sinners to repntance,' If you have young children, I do hope for their sakes that they are ungodly sinners, because they're the only people that Christ has anything to do with.
'And I say to you that many will come from the east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth' (Matt 8:11-12 ).
It is just so dissonant with the testimony of the OT saints.
It is not. It is the truth, the wonder and the glory of the Gospel. Christ died for the ungodly. Praise His name!

Martin
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Better indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love' (Gal 5:6 ).

Martin

Martin,

I don't know if you realize how your interpretations reinforce to me how cold Calvinism is without Covenant theology.

Rich, I'm sorry that you find love and the New Birth leave you cold, but that is your problem.
What does the prophet mean when he states that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to their children and children to fathers as a promise in the Day of the Lord?

Precisely what he says, but it has nothing to do with circumcision or baptism unless you decide to read it in.
You seem to delight in any idea that would mean our children are no different than the children of pagans. It seems you have to remain coldly rational to be consistent and avoid any delight that God gives us in the promises He made to the OT saints regarding their children.

The glory of the Gospel is that 'Christ died for the ungodly' and that He came 'Not to call the righteous but sinners to repntance,' If you have young children, I do hope for their sakes that they are ungodly sinners, because they're the only people that Christ has anything to do with.
'And I say to you that many will come from the east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth' (Matt 8:11-12 ).
It is just so dissonant with the testimony of the OT saints.
It is not. It is the truth, the wonder and the glory of the Gospel. Christ died for the ungodly. Praise His name!

Martin
Yes, I realize you do not see it as cold. I said that I viewed it as cold and not because I hate love and the New Birth. I stated that I view your theology as cold and dissonant but I did not expect it to sway your view.

It is remarkable to me, however, that a theology can exclude one's own children in the most important relationship in one's life and some merely delight in it without wrestling with it. To eagerly seek to disconnect oneself spiritually from his offspring when passages teach otherwise is not delightful to me.

I speak of delighting in children and you don't even interact with the love a father has for his children but jump coldly to the idea of hell for my Covenant offspring.

Here are my children, my Godly inheritance. They are the apple of my eye:

http://www.L..us/LeinoCovenantChildren.jpg


[Edited on 12-29-2005 by SemperFideles]
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by pastorway
John 17:19
And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

Sancitification is not always used as if the person being "sanctified" is in need of salvation. It means other things too, even as the verse in 1 Cor 7:14 proves.



[Edited on 12-29-05 by pastorway]

:ditto:
 

Mocha

Puritan Board Freshman
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Sure, Mal. 4:5-6 is speaking of John the Baptist. That's not the issue. What do the words mean? Why are they there? It's as if we are picking out the term "Elijah" and the rest of the words are meaningless? Why be satisfied with the excessively general interpretation: "He's calling Israel back to God"? There is more to it than that...

Here's John Piper's take on Mal. 4:5-6. he says:

When Elijah preaches, and cries out for people to get ready to meet on the great and terrible day of the Lord what happens? Verse 6: "And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."

His aim is to spare people from being cursed. That's the mercy we saw in verse 5. But to spare people from being cursed people must be changed. Specifically, it it says their hearts must be changed. And even more specifically it says that the disposition of the heart toward fathers and children must be changed.

Some take this verse to refer to the fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob, so that the meaning is simply this"”that the people will return to the faith of the fathers. But the problem with this is that it says that Elijah will also turn the fathers hearts toward the children. It would be unlikely that God would speak of Elijah changing the hearts of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. So I take it in its simpler sense: ordinary living fathers and ordinary living children will have their hearts changed toward each other.(Piper's Sermon)

If I understand John Piper correctly, he is saying that God will change the hearts of fathers and children.

Can you show me where the passage suggests a covenantal sense rather than a salvific one?

Mike

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by Mocha]
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
I guess Jesus missed the covenantal outworking turning hearts within the family when He stated emphatically:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´

Now THAT is cold! But that is truth.

All the hyperbole aside, and all the false allegations about how certian people here view chiuldren and families, we have to honestly admit that there is no promise given in Scripture whereby we can say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. Election is not based upon or influenced by your physical lineage. That is exactly why the physical descendents of Abraham are not the children of promise!

Phillip
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Originally posted by pastorway
I guess Jesus missed the covenantal outworking turning hearts within the family when He stated emphatically:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´

Now THAT is cold! But that is truth.

All the hyperbole aside, and all the false allegations about how certian people here view chiuldren and families, we have to honestly admit that there is no promise given in Scripture whereby we can say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. Election is not based upon or influenced by your physical lineage. That is exactly why the physical descendents of Abraham are not the children of promise!

Phillip

The above is true, however, God is held by His covenant that he made. he even validates it to the Pharisees:

Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

You are intermingling two different principles. The visible and the invisible.

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Mocha

Puritan Board Freshman
Rich,

You said:

You keep trying to convince me that because Christ's ministry is "better" or "more perfect" that children are somehow an inherent imperfection in the Old Covenant.

Let me respond to that by sharing similar reasoning.

How would you respond to an Arminian who sees "election" as being cold hearted and unfair on God's part? I'm guessing, but I think you would probably explain to him that election is really God giving grace, mercy and love to underserving people who were on their way to hell. You would probably point out that man in his natural state does not want anything to do with God, and the fact that God would work at all in the lives of undeserving people, shows how gracious he really is.

In the same way, when people feel it's cold hearted and unfair on God's part not to include unbelievers in the New Covenant (whether infant or adult), it should be pointed out that the fault of previous administrations of the COG, was that, "they did not continue in my covenant". The New Covenant is faultless because all will be believers and therfore will continue in the covenant. This necessarily means, that unbelievers (whether infant or adult) cannot be in the New Covenant administration of the COG. The emphasis should be on the gracious faultlessness of the New Covenant.

BUT I also believe the promises to a father and his children were improved as well. When a shoot is grafted into a tree it begins to generate and branch out from the moment it is grafted in and receives life. The New Covenant is not merely more excellent because new shoots are being grafted in much more (and from more nations) than before but also because the shoots that are grafted are more productive.

Yes I agree that the promises have improved! If a father and his children are born again, they can celebrate the fact that their position in the New Covenant is forever. This truth, I'm sure, has been a real source of comfort for many families attending a funeral.

It is not an EITHER OR but it is BOTH AND. I agree that the Covenant has been improved as every man and woman receives the Spirit, the Gospel spreads from Jew to God-fearer to Samaritan to Gentile, AND fathers and their children are drawn closer together and apostasy occurs with less regularity than in the old covenant so that we can rejoice at the blessing of seeing our grandchildren calling on the name of the Lord.

You seem to be down playing the fact that the New Covenant administration is different in "kind". It is different and better in "kind" primarily because it cannot be broken, because all within it know God in a salvific sense and want to (and can) live for him. I just can't see how unbeievers can be part of the New Covenant administration.

What is remarkable about this discussion is that I would challenge any credo-Baptist to use the idea expressed to any man whose 18 year old son has just spit in his face and told him that he hates God. Minister to him with the idea that "After all, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. Your son's apostasy is not a curse at all. It is an improvement in the Covenant that your son now hates God."

God forbid any man comfort a grieving father with such words and yet, in theological musings divorced from their practical implications, we can talk about children as if they were always some sort of disposable element of the Covenant.

First of all, if a son tells his Christian father he hates God, how will telling him that he's in the covenant make any difference? He needs to be told that he is not right with God and that he needs to run to Christ for forgiveness.

Rich, I don't think the credo view is as cold as you're making it out to be.

Mike
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Mike writes:
You seem to be down playing the fact that the New Covenant administration is different in "kind". It is different and better in "kind" primarily because it cannot be broken, because all within it know God in a salvific sense and want to (and can) live for him. I just can't see how unbeievers can be part of the New Covenant administration.

Mike, again I ask, how is this any different from the time of Adam. The elect cannot break covenant. Unbelievers are part of the covenant as they were over the ages, externally/visibly only.

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
Originally posted by Mocha
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Sure, Mal. 4:5-6 is speaking of John the Baptist. That's not the issue. What do the words mean? Why are they there? It's as if we are picking out the term "Elijah" and the rest of the words are meaningless? Why be satisfied with the excessively general interpretation: "He's calling Israel back to God"? There is more to it than that...

Here's John Piper's take on Mal. 4:5-6. he says:

When Elijah preaches, and cries out for people to get ready to meet on the great and terrible day of the Lord what happens? Verse 6: "And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."

His aim is to spare people from being cursed. That's the mercy we saw in verse 5. But to spare people from being cursed people must be changed. Specifically, it it says their hearts must be changed. And even more specifically it says that the disposition of the heart toward fathers and children must be changed.

Some take this verse to refer to the fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob, so that the meaning is simply this"”that the people will return to the faith of the fathers. But the problem with this is that it says that Elijah will also turn the fathers hearts toward the children. It would be unlikely that God would speak of Elijah changing the hearts of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. So I take it in its simpler sense: ordinary living fathers and ordinary living children will have their hearts changed toward each other.(Piper's Sermon)

If I understand John Piper correctly, he is saying that God will change the hearts of fathers and children.

Can you show me where the passage suggests a covenantal sense rather than a salvific one?

Mike

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by Mocha]
Why does it have to be either/or? We have established at least something of the grammatical/linguistic meaning of the text (thank you pastor Piper!), now move on to "why". Why does God say such things? and why here? Could this have anything to do with other passages that speak of fathers and sons? Gen. 17:7? Ex. 2:24? 1 Ki. 18:36-37? Is. 59:15b-21(!) Hos. 11:1?

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Contra_Mundum]
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
When we say "new/different in KIND" rather than "new/different by replacement" (which designation I am willing to grant at this point without argument, but compare the Greek Heb. 8:13, and Heb. 12:24 re. the new covenant), this does not relieve said person from defining exactly what he means by it. FOR EXAMPLE:

When I say this is a new/different kind of CAR from that one, I might be talking about a sedan vs. a stationwagon. Or maybe (a bit more radically) a sedan vs. a minivan. Or maybe a sedan vs. a 15 passenger van. Or maybe a futuristic concept car vs. a Model T. But we are still talking CARS here, at least defined as 4-wheels on the ground, and not a TRUCK. So something doesn't change. We can't be talking a new CAR, when we have a late model sedan compared with a digital camera!

So when you say "oh, its a new KIND of covenant," you first need to define what the non-negotiable parts of a "covenant" are, so that you have some kind of baseline from which to explain how the new covenant is NEW, but still a COVENANT.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Again Mike I'm disinterested in what is fair but, rather, what is God's nature and how children being a disposable element of the Covenant is an "improvement" or marks it as "better". Simply saying something is different in kind or improves because its promises are better fails to answer the question.

Reading into the "better" and "improved" and saying "Ah yes, it must mean God no longer includes children - that is MUCH better..." makes little sense unless God has stated such.

I have presented the alternative, Covenantal view that it is better ALSO in the way that God turns a father to his children and the children to his father.

What is remarkable about this discussion is that I would challenge any credo-Baptist to use the idea expressed to any man whose 18 year old son has just spit in his face and told him that he hates God. Minister to him with the idea that "After all, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. Your son's apostasy is not a curse at all. It is an improvement in the Covenant that your son now hates God."

God forbid any man comfort a grieving father with such words and yet, in theological musings divorced from their practical implications, we can talk about children as if they were always some sort of disposable element of the Covenant.
First of all, if a son tells his Christian father he hates God, how will telling him that he's in the covenant make any difference? He needs to be told that he is not right with God and that he needs to run to Christ for forgiveness.
You miss my point. I'm not dealing with how a paedobaptist would comfort the man. I'm trying to show that the idea that a man's child is outside the Covenant brings no joy to any man. When even a Baptist's child turns his back on the faith it is a terribly sad thing. Reformed credo-Baptists mark the idea that "Ah well God never Elected him" as some sort of indifferent thing confined to the secret counsel of God that should not affect the heart of a believer. According to the credo-Baptist theology, a true believer should mark the son rejecting the faith with indifference since the child was never in the Covenant to begin with. To grieve over such an event would be inconsistent with one's confession. I've just never met a man who meets such an event with anything but sorrow because who doesn't want the blessing of sharing the love of God with your flesh and blood? There are those who talk around this very real longing (which is a very Biblical longing) with dispassion.

Rich, I don't think the credo view is as cold as you're making it out to be.
I respect every man's right to come to his own conclusions based on his own Biblical convictions. I find it very cold as do many in the OPC and PCA that I talk to about it. I was talking to Dr. Horton about this over lunch one time and he told me a story of a Professor at Westminster (whose name escapes me) that had special sessions with students to talk issues of Covenant. At one point a Reformed Baptist student made comments akin to those commonly made in this thread and others and he just began to weep.

I intend to sway nobody over to my camp by appealing to an emotional plea or some sort of "Gosh stop making me sad" argument. I'm just honestly sharing that the Reformed Baptist view on the place of children strikes many of us as cold and extremely sad. It is not hyperbolic or mean-spirited. It's just our reaction because our heart is caught up in the matter.

Obviously, if I was convinced of the credo-Baptist position I would believe it was not cold at all. I am not however so I don't believe God has excluded my childrent from the Covenant. Don't confuse my criticism of Baptist theology with criticism of God. Some believe them to be the same so I can understand how it causes some rancor.

I consider it cold when somebody is telling me that God considers my children nothing more than those who are just holy enough that I shouldn't abandon them.

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by SemperFideles]
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by pastorway
I guess Jesus missed the covenantal outworking turning hearts within the family when He stated emphatically:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´

Now THAT is cold! But that is truth.

All the hyperbole aside, and all the false allegations about how certian people here view chiuldren and families, we have to honestly admit that there is no promise given in Scripture whereby we can say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. Election is not based upon or influenced by your physical lineage. That is exactly why the physical descendents of Abraham are not the children of promise!

Phillip
I didn't say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. If you can show me where I did then I will recant.

I stated that God has promised to be God of me and my children. I am a wretched sinner saved by Grace. When my children pray with me they thank Him for Christ's righteousness and that, apart from Christ, they are dead in their sins and trespasses.

Why are you so angry?
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
angry?

hahahahaha

Just goes to show how much of communication is non-verbal physical cues.

I am not angry at all. But I am tired of the attitudes and condescention and assumptions that are made on this forum in these discussions. Everybody talks, nobody listens.

:deadhorse:
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
OK. I'm glad you're not angry.

Can you show me where I stated that God is bound to save our children so we can seek to understand each other better?
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
I never claimed that you personally said that. I said that we all must admit that that God never made such a promise.

Phillip
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
To help pastorway there, and I agree with him -

If I might say it this way: God is not obliged to save ANYONE. He has, though, decreed to save the elect in Christ. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with how children are viewed in covenant, or not, or how the CoG works with those who are non elect since the CoG is not coextensive with salvation. That is where particular baptists go wrong. The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.

But that does not forgive us for bad exegetical work or misunderstanding the difference between a covenantal promise and a soteriological promise. Genesis 17, for example is not a soteriological promise, it is a covenantal promise, which is a different subset of the work of redemption. God deals soteriologically in His decrees through the CoR and in the CoG to us, as well as providing covenantally sound statements which surround covenantal ideologies (such as the way we should understand Genesis 17 or its restatement by Peter in Acts 2, also coupling the prophecy of Joel and the Psalms). One has to be very careful in the manner they deal with covenantal concepts.
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.
:ditto:


Pastorway,
You mentioned this passage: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´ "

With due respect, aren't the words of Christ here irrelevant to the discussion as He is probably speaking of Jews and Christian converts? Isn't He speaking in terms of progress, not digression? (Progress would be moving from OC to NC. Digression would be moving from NC to apostacy)
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.
Agreed. Of course, there is the rub...
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
From Mocha:
Here's my question:

When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?
All arguments to douse infant baptism will splatter infant circumcision as well.

Abraham wanted an heir. Is it not significant the sign was placed on the reproductive organ, the instrument for producing children? Would it not stand to reason that the child would be included in the covenant in every way (and that rather we are included in the Child) ?

The families of the earth will be blessed. The whole thing is about the children and then the children aren't even included?
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.
Agreed. Of course, there is the rub...

There indeed is the rub. The fact is that the WCF knows nothing of a Covenant or Council of Redemption. It was added later in the SSK by (I believe) only two of the Westminster Divines. It is my opinion that this duplication cannot be justified in Scripture and makes covenant theology unnecessarily complicated.

Grace & Peace,

Martin
 

Steve Owen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by Mocha

Martin,

Here is a post from another forum that seemed pretty convincing that the "he" in Hebrews 10:29 could not be Christ. BTW, this post was from a Credo.

it is important that the main subject of the sentence is this individual who is deserving (AXIWQHSEQAI) punishment. the three participles are semantically subordinate to this verb and the prepositional phrase EN Wi hHGIASQH is semantically subordinate to TO hAIMA (this is what the diagram clearly shows). i see no reason from the grammar that any greek speaker would ever take TON hUION as the antecedent of hHGIASQH. i think this may be a case of trying to smooth out a difficult text because it is not in accordance with ones theology. unless someone can point out a semantic or pragmatic reason from the text itself (not other Scriptures and theologizing) why the proposed reading is warranted. if not, i strongly suggest that these current assertions that Christ is sanctified by His own blood be abandoned. thanks. (Quote by Doug Hoxworth)

See his diagram below.

How much severer punishment | do you think | he will
deserve
----------------------------------------------who---has
trampled under foot -> the Son of God,
----------------------------------------------and---has
regarded -> the blood of the covenant = as unclean

by which he was sanctified,
----------------------------------------------and---has
insulted -> the Spirit of grace?

It seems pretty convincing to me. Do you have any sources that can refute this?

Mike

Well, I don't think it's correct. As I said, "The Son of God" is the nearest antecedent, but I think grammatically the "he" could be either Christ or the apostate. John Owen (Congregational), James Haldane (Baptist) and John Brown of Edinburgh (Presbyterian) in their commentaries accept that either could be correct.

However, to say that someone can be sanctified by the blood of Christ and then fall away is proving a whole lot more than Paedo-baptists would wish to. If I believed that, I would not be a Paedo-baptist, but an Arminian.

Blessings,

Martin
 

C. Matthew McMahon

Christian Preacher
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.
Agreed. Of course, there is the rub...

There indeed is the rub. The fact is that the WCF knows nothing of a Covenant or Council of Redemption. It was added later in the SSK by (I believe) only two of the Westminster Divines.

The WCF actually does make the distinction between the CoW/CoG (chapter 7) and the decrees of God (the CoR) in chapter 3. They made the practical difference instead of the theological differecne (which they espoused in thier writings). Thus, the WCF is pressed more as a practical guide to theology than a systematic theology fully stated. The SOSK is a practcial commentary on the WCF by far more than 2 who were involved in writing the WCF.

I am unsure why you would say that only 2 beleived the CoR. That is grossly inaccurate. I'd check some of their actual works which utilize the term innumerably. Both the English and Scottish Presbyterian church ministers and theologians wrote on this subject exstensively. As per example, for a reprint of a classic - check "The Covenant of Life Opened" by Samuel Rutherford (which we just released) that gives entire chapters over to explaining this concept as central to any theological view of the Bible.

Prior to the WCF, you can find it exstensively in the works of the Reformers. Turretin for example, is classic:

Francis Turretin´s View Of The Covenant Of Grace And Its Distinctions, With Critical Notes Following
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm

Without defining this, one will always mix up the Decrees (chapter 3) with the practical outworking of how those decrees work int he lives of men (chapter 7). That is why the rub remains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top