That is my point. He believed they were.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
John is talking about an individual being pruned. Not about believers being grafted in. Is halios the same word used in 1Corinthians 7 where the spouse and children are sanctified even though they aren't believers? I will get back to you. I am also doing homework with my children at the same time? I want to look closer. Look at what I wrote closer if you have time. Does Jesus Graft in Unbelievers into the Olive Tree? Are unregenerate people included in the Ephesians text? Answer some of my questions also. I could be wrong. Randy
2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. As some men corrupt the grace of God, others suppress it maliciously, and others choke it by carelessness, Christ intends by these words to awaken anxious inquiry, by declaring that all the branches which shall be unfruitful will be cut off from the vine. But here comes a question. Can any one who is engrafted into Christ be without fruit? I answer, many are supposed to be in the vine, according to the opinion of men, who actually have no root in the vine. Thus, in the writings of the prophets, the Lord calls the people of Israel his vine, because, by outward profession, they had the name of The Church.
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I believe they were what it says. He takes it away. It could be a reference to being Isreal in the Old Covenant. They could be cut off or taken away. Like in Romans 11. Don't you Think?
Couldn't they be in Covenant Relation to God by the Old Covenant of works and be cut off?
[Edited on 12-1-2004 by puritancovenanter]
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I believe they were what it says. He takes it away. It could be a reference to being Isreal in the Old Covenant. They could be cut off or taken away. Like in Romans 11. Don't you Think?
Couldn't they be in Covenant Relation to God by the Old Covenant of works and be cut off?
[Edited on 12-1-2004 by puritancovenanter]
The C.O.W. ended in the garden with Adam, unless of course you are willing to say that God saved men in the OT differently than He does now in the new??? The passage clearly says, "in me". Those that are in me that don't bear fruit I cut away.......
The Matt verse:
You say it's the world. So the world is in the net right? The net is the kingdom of God. So, the world is in the kingdom of God?
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
I disagree. The C.O.W. was ruined by Adam. It was in essence nuetralized by Adams sin and fall. Ever since this time, even if men were able to keep the law perfectly, it would have still been stained by Adams rebellion and resulting sin. This is why we needed Christ. He was sinless and could then fulfill the law where men in Adam could not.
The New Covenant began in Genesis:
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Originally posted by webmaster
Fred this is an inquiring question:
If men are under thw CoW (and they are) who are not in Christ, what makes those in covenant with God (say Korah) recieve more judgment than the aboriginy who never hears the Gospel? In other words, is there a "worse side" of the CoG in your mind that enacts greater wrath (i.e. cursings) for those who are covenant breakers? If there is not, how then are they different practically?
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
I disagree. The C.O.W. was ruined by Adam. It was in essence nuetralized by Adams sin and fall. Ever since this time, even if men were able to keep the law perfectly, it would have still been stained by Adams rebellion and resulting sin. This is why we needed Christ. He was sinless and could then fulfill the law where men in Adam could not.
The New Covenant began in Genesis:
Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Scott,
If the Covenant of Works were not still in place, then the punsihment of death would not be warranted. Man stands guilty of violating the Covenant of Works BECAUSE Adam sinned. The parallel between the CoW/Adam and CoG/Christ is THE fundamental distinction of Reformed theology. The continuation of the Covenant of Works is held by every single Reformed theologian I have ever read (Calvin, Owen, Turretun, Hodge, Dabney, Thornwell, etc, etc, etc.) If you can find one person who says that the CoW does not exist anymore (who is not wrapped up in the Federal Vision - since this contention is the fountain of all their errors) please let me know.
Life is still available by keeping the law perfectly. We know this for two reasons:
1. Moses says as much in the Pentateuch
2. It is the foundation for Christ's fulfilling of the CoW on our behalf.
And as I have said before - the New Covenant does not begin in Genesis, the Covenant of Grace does.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
I should have been clearer. The C.O.W. is left somewhat wanting...... I never said it was removed or gone. what I mean by this is, no one can keep it now. All of us have by default have failed at conception (because of Adams fall). Christ was able to fulfill it because He was born sinless, hence the C.O.W was not in the same state for Christ as it is for us.
Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Scott,
What would you say if I cross referenced John 15:2 with 1 Corinthians 3:14-17?.
If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyones work is burned up, he shall suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that your are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.