# My Position on Covenant Theology



## VanVos (Mar 27, 2005)

It seems that it's been a while since we have had a good theological discussion on Covenant Theology. So I thought I'd take this opportunity to concisely present my position. I would really appreciate feed back from both paedo and credo alike.

I believe in the Covenant Redemption that was made in eternity past between God the Father and God the Son to elect certain sinners to salvation. This covenant on part of God the Son was conditional. (John 6:37-40, 17:2, Heb 10:5-10) 

I believe in the Covenant of Works that was made in Eden between God and Adam, which promised eschatological glory for Adam and his descendents. This covenant on the part of Adam as the federal head over humanity was conditional. (Rom 5:12-21, I Cor 15:45-47 Hosea 6:7)

I believe in the one Covenant of Grace in the following administrations through out redemptive history that served the purpose of the Covenant of redemption (Eph 2:12) 

I believe in the Adamic Covenant that was made between God and Adam after the fall, which promised that the seed of the women would destroy the work Satan and accomplish redemption for the elect. This covenant on the part of elect sinner is unconditional. (Gen 3:15)

I believe in the Noahic Covenant that was made between God and Noah after the flood, which promised that Noah and his descendents that God would never wipe out mankind by a worldwide flood again. This Covenant on the part of Noah descendents is unconditional. (Gen 9:8-17)

I believe in the Abrahamic Covenant that was made in Mesopotamia between God and Abraham that promised that in Abraham´s seed all the nations would be blessed. This covenant on the part of Abraham was unconditional. (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:8)

I believe in the Sinaitic Covenant that was made in wilderness between the God and the Nation Israel that promised God's people prosperity as the Kingdom of God on earth. This covenant on the part of Israel was conditional. (Deut 28:1-2)

I believe in the Davidic Covenant that was made in Jerusalem between God and King David that promised that one his descendents (the promised seed) would forever establish the Kingdom of God. This covenant of the part of David was unconditional. (2 Sam 7:14-16)

I believe in the New Covenant that was made in the upper room between Christ and the elect sinner that promised redemption and eschatological glory. This covenant on the part of the elect is unconditional. (Heb 8:6-13, Heb 2:9-11) 

Christ, as the Second Adam and the promise seed, fulfilled both the Covenant of Works and the Covenants of Promise (2 Cor 1:20, Eph 2:12, Gal 3:16,29)

VanVos




[Edited on 3-31-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> I believe in the Sinaitic that was made in wilderness between the God and the Nation Israel that promised God's people prosperity as the Kingdom of God on earth. This covenant on the part of Israel was conditional. (Deut 28:1-2)



I would agree with you except on this point, and even here I think it is a small disagreement, that would perhaps disappear if you spent more time explaining your understanding of it. The typical blessings of Sinai were certainly conditional, but not the spiritual. The covenant as Sinai was clearly a renewal of the same covenant with Abraham, though with much more instructional "scaffolding" with it, to teach them of the coming promised seed of Abraham, the true Prophet, whom Moses prefigured. Salvation , even at Sinai, was by grace alone. Notice the law was given to them after they were redeemed from Egypt. 

I also think you need to define what you mean by conditional and unconditional. Certainly the covenant of grace is unconditional in the sense that what God requires of us, God provides. But it is still conditional in the fact that this relationship is bilateral. We are called to respond in faith and obedience to the grace given us in the covenant. We have been created and redeemed to fellowship with God.

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2005)

Very good post, Jonathan. I agree with Patrick's above summary. To carry the discussion a bit further, how does this affect your view on Baptism?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 28, 2005)

Thanks Partrick for your feedback, here are some terms more clearly defined.

Conditional = meritorious work is required by the covenant recipient.
Unconditional = meritorious work done by the author of the covenant.

Unconditional covenants and it's benefits are received by faith, not by works. This faith is placed in the promise that author of the covenant will fulfill the work required in the covenant.

I would also add that Siniatic Covenant was only conditional for Israel as a nation. As individuals this covenant acted as a schoolmaster to bring them to the promise seed of both the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenants (Gal 3:22-26). 

VanVos

P.S. Is the anyway I can move this topic to the Covenant Theology forum?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Very good post, Jonathan. I agree with Patrick's above summary. To carry the discussion a bit further, how does this affect your view on Baptism?



Christ, as the Second Adam and the promise seed, fulfilled both the Covenant of Works and the Covenants of Promise (2 Cor 1:20, Eph 2:12, Gal 3:16,29). Since Christ (the promised seed fulfills) the covenants of promise we are now at point in redemptive history where there is no longer any genelogical covenants. Therefore the New Covenant only consist of those who have the faith Gal 3:28-29 of Abraham. Therefore I would argue that we only baptise those who profess faith in the promised seed, which Chirst. I know that is incredibly brief, so I will be happy expound on what I mean if you like.

VanVos

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 28, 2005)

I guess I'd have to see how you apply it, Jonathan. After all, theology that isn't lived isn't really theology. So how is this practiced in your life? I mean, ideally; not trying to flesh out our failings, but how do intend to live this view of the covenant? For example, who's in and who's out? Was Manasseh in the Davidic Covenant? How does that impact how we view the ramifications of the Redemptive Covenant? And how does that bear on the people in our churches? Etc., Etc.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2005)

> Christ, as the Second Adam and the promise seed, fulfilled both the Covenant of Works and the Covenants of Promise



What do you mean by Christ "fulfilled" the Covenants of Promise? You are using the term "fulfilled" as if he did away with the elements it involved, such as circumcision (which was a spiritual act). The Abrahamic promise is only referred to as a single covenant throughout Scripture, not a national _and_ spiritual covenant. We Gentiles were grafted into the covenant, the New Covenant is not a brand new, never-before-understood covenant, it is just a more glorious outward administration of the same Covenant of Grace:

*Eph 2:11Â  Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "œthe uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands"” 12Â remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13Â But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit"”just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call"” 5Â one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6Â one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7Â But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.*

The New Covenant is not a _new tree_ with different spiritual substance and membership, but we are grafted into the one, single covenantal tree of God's grace (Rom 11). There is no passage in the NT that indicates a radical change in covenantal membership, as changing the significance of the sacraments (baptism/communion) would require. If children were included in the covenants of promise, and we Gentiles have now been grafted into the covenants of promise, children are still included. This principle is not only never repealed in the NT, but is only affirmed (1 Cor 7:14; Acts 2:38-39).

The most important thing to keep in mind about the Covenant of Grace is its makeup and the _dual nature_ of it. For that, I will paraphrase some Berkhof (with a few minor additions by myself), to be most clear:



> The Covenant of Grace (CoG) is the promise of God to save His people for His glory. This covenant has been expressed in various ways and under varying administrations throughout redemptive history. It was first made in the Garden of Eden with Adam & Eve post-Fall, with the promise of a seed that would crush Satan and a hope of forgiveness of sins (Gen 3:15). It was renewed with Abraham, Moses, and David, and was finally culminated and fulfilled in Jesus Christ through the New Covenant.
> 
> The CoG is, first and foremost, based on God's promise alone. We find this discussed in the same manner throughout Scripture in the basic phraseology of "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" (Gen 17:7; Jer 31:33; 32:38-40; Ezek 34:23-25,30,31; 36:25-28; 37:26,27; 2 Cor 6:16-18; Heb 8:10). This one covenantal promise contains several promises within itself, such as various temporal blessings (often symbolizing spiritual ones), promise of justification and a claim to eternal life, and the promise of the Spirit of God to apply redemption and the blessings of salvation (cf. Job 19:25-27; Psa 16:11; 73:24-26; Isa 43:25; Jer 31:33,34; Ezek 36:27; Dan 12:2,3; Gal 4:5,6; Tit 3:7; Heb 11:7; Jas 2:5).
> 
> ...



Hope this helps shed some light on the nature of the CoG and covenants in general. Grace and peace.


----------



## VanVos (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I guess I'd have to see how you apply it, Jonathan. After all, theology that isn't lived isn't really theology. So how is this practiced in your life? I mean, ideally; not trying to flesh out our failings, but how do intend to live this view of the covenant? For example, who's in and who's out? Was Manasseh in the Davidic Covenant? How does that impact how we view the ramifications of the Redemptive Covenant? And how does that bear on the people in our churches? Etc., Etc.



I think that my position is as Christocentric as possible. This is where all redemptive theology must point to. The more Christocentric our covenant theology is the more healthy God's people will be. I'm over generalizing here but I think that this shows the importance of Covenant Theology. Yes I believe Christ was in the Davidic Covenant because He is the promised seed.

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_I think that my position is as Christocentric as possible. This is where all redemptive theology must point to. The more Christocentric our covenant theology is the more healthy God's people will be. I'm over generalizing here but I think that this shows the importance of Covenant Theology. Yes I believe Christ was in the Davidic Covenant because He is the promised seed.



Something more for you to consider. Every covenant before the NT included children in the promise, even the New Covenant as prophecied by Jeremiah (31,32). Even though promise was only realized in the elect (i.e. Isaac, Jacob, etc.) it was still _historically_ administered through families. God has always been a God of families, not just with Abraham and Moses, but as far back as Noah and Adam, and so predicted in Jeremiah and Malachi too. Faith has always been the instrument to enjoy the promises of salvation in the covenant as Abraham illustrates, even before he was circumcised. Yet the historical outworking of this covenant with Abraham included his family. The covenant made with Abraham AND his descendents was an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17). Why would this pattern of the historical administration of the covenant change in the New Testament? And if it did change, where is the Scriptural evidence for such a radical change to no longer include families?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 28, 2005)

The CoG is made in a legal aspect with families, and in a spiritual aspect with the elect.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 29, 2005)

Visit this site for some good info in the covenants from a Reformed Baptist persective: http://members.lycos.co.uk/reformedbaptist/homepage.htm

Specifically, see John Owen on the Covenants here.

Phillip


----------



## VanVos (Mar 29, 2005)

Good links pastorway, thanks. 

In regards to the question about the inclusion of non-elect person in the New Covenant i.e. a child of the believing parents. I would argue that this is not a constituent part of the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews in Chapters 8-10 speaks of the inviolability (Heb 8:9) and the exclusivity (Heb 8:10-11) of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant the number of elect persons and those who know the Lord is a co-equal number. Therefore I conclude that The New Covenant consist only of the elect. We are now at a point in redemptive history where the promise seed has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Only those in him make up the covenant community.

In regards to Romans 11 I would say the true Vine is Christ John 15: 1-7 not Israel since Christ fulfilled what Israel failed to do (typologically). All elect persons from all ages are engrafted into Christ not the old Covenant community of ethnic Israel. 

VanVos




[Edited on 3-29-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 29, 2005)

moving to Covenant theology forum


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> In regards to the question about the inclusion of non-elect person in the New Covenant i.e. a child of the believing parents. I would argue that this is not a constituent part of the New Covenant.


The Prophets may disagree with your understanding of the New Covenant. 
Jer. 32
37Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. 38They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of *them and their children after them*. 40And I will make an *everlasting covenant with them*, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

Mal. 4
6And he will turn 
The hearts of the fathers to the children, 
And the hearts of the children to their fathers, 
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse." 

Isaiah 65

17"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; 
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. 
18But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; 
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, 
And her people a joy. 
19I will rejoice in Jerusalem, 
And joy in My people; 
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, 
Nor the voice of crying. 
20"No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, 
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; 
For the child shall die one hundred years old, 
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. 
21They shall build houses and inhabit them; 
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 
22They shall not build and another inhabit; 
They shall not plant and another eat; 
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, 
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 
23They shall not labor in vain, 
Nor bring forth children for trouble; 
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD, 
* And their offspring with them. *




> The book of Hebrews in Chapters 8-10 speaks of the inviolability (Heb 8:9) and the exclusivity (Heb 8:10-11) of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant the number of elect persons and those who know the Lord is a co-equal number. Therefore I conclude that The New Covenant consist only of the elect. We are now at a point in redemptive history where the promise seed has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Only those in him make up the covenant community.


This has always been the case that only the elect are saved though. Abraham was plainly told this. Isaac was chosen and Ishmael rejected. Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected. But that didn't stop Abraham from including him the historical administration of the covenant of grace. Romans 9 makes that clear, as well as the remnant ideas taught by the prophets, which Paul bases Romans 9 on. But the consistent truth of election did not change the historical administration of that covenant through families. And as shown above, that same pattern is repeated in the prophecies of the New Covenant. 

The pattern is consistent with all the covenants. They are made with families and they are everlasting. 
Noah Gen. 9:9
Abraham Gen. 12:3, 17:7 "Interesting that all the "families" of the world shall be blessed) 
Isaac Gen. 26:3-5
Jacob Gen. 28:4
Moses, verses a plenty, but note Ex. 12 with the Passover institution, an everlasting ordinance celebrated in the family.
David 2 Sam. 7:12-16, 1 Kings 2:1-4 (also interesting how David understood the historical application of his covenant to his descendents despite the obvious fact that his office pointed to Christ)
Also the prophets above. 
You already know the NT references I'm sure which certainly would indicate a continuation of this understanding of the historical administration of the covenant despite the continued teaching of only the children of promise being saved. Acts 2:39, 16:31.

And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type? 





> In regards to Romans 11 I would say the true Vine is Christ John 15: 1-7 not Israel since Christ fulfilled what Israel failed to do (typologically). All elect persons from all ages are engrafted into Christ not the old Covenant community of ethnic Israel.



Paul doesn't talk about a vine here but an olive tree. And he speaks of the Gentiles being grafted in "among them," them being ethnic Israel, the visible people of God. So certianly Christ is the true vine, but Paul isn't talking about that concept in Romans 11.

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

In regards to the question about the inclusion of non-elect person in the New Covenant i.e. a child of the believing parents. I would argue that this is not a constituent part of the New Covenant. [/quote]
The Prophets may disagree with your understanding of the New Covenant. 
Jer. 32
37Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. 38They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of *them and their children after them*. 40And I will make an *everlasting covenant with them*, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. [/quote]

But that's not how Jeremiah 31 is used in Hebrews 8. The prophesy is more clearly explained in Hebrews 8. We have allow the New Testament to interpret the Old (and I'm saying you don't). e.g. Micah 4:1-3 is fulfilled spiritual in Hebrews 12:22-23. 



> Mal. 4
> 6And he will turn
> The hearts of the fathers to the children,
> And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
> ...



Again The New Testament shows that it is the believer that are the descendents or seed of the Israel of God Gal 2:28-29 Gal 6:16. Old Covenant ethnic community has passed away Heb 8:13 but spritual Israel of God remains Rom 2:29.




> > The book of Hebrews in Chapters 8-10 speaks of the inviolability (Heb 8:9) and the exclusivity (Heb 8:10-11) of the New Covenant. In the New Covenant the number of elect persons and those who know the Lord is a co-equal number. Therefore I conclude that The New Covenant consist only of the elect. We are now at a point in redemptive history where the promise seed has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Only those in him make up the covenant community.
> 
> 
> This has always been the case that only the elect are saved though. Abraham was plainly told this. Isaac was chosen and Ishmael rejected. Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected. But that didn't stop Abraham from including him the historical administration of the covenant of grace. Romans 9 makes that clear, as well as the remnant ideas taught by the prophets, which Paul bases Romans 9 on. But the consistent truth of election did not change the historical administration of that covenant through families. And as shown above, that same pattern is repeated in the prophecies of the New Covenant.
> ...



I would have to disagree. I do not see a Acts 2:39 or 16:31 as reference to the continuation of such a covenant. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses. I be happy to give my interpretation on those verses if you like.



> And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type?



The general principles of those family orientation covenant still apply to the New Testament Church. 1 Cor 7:14. The non saved children of the believing parent(s) are blessed by the New Covenant but not in the New Covenant. 




> In regards to Romans 11 I would say the true Vine is Christ John 15: 1-7 not Israel since Christ fulfilled what Israel failed to do (typologically). All elect persons from all ages are engrafted into Christ not the old Covenant community of ethnic Israel.



Paul doesn't talk about a vine here but an olive tree. And he speaks of the Gentiles being grafted in "among them," them being ethnic Israel, the visible people of God. So certianly Christ is the true vine, but Paul isn't talking about that concept in Romans 11.

[/quote]

True it is the olive tree and not the Vine but it still is a reference to our spiritual life coming from Christ, yes? This is speaking of the visible church but that doesn't mean that we have an covenant here. Yes it is covenant like language but that does mean it is a covenant. To me the is no warrent in carrying over an Old testament covenant concept that has been fufilled in Chirst. 2 Cor 1:20 Gal 3:19-29 Eph 2:11-19.

Thanks again, I really appreciate your input 

VanVos

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 30, 2005)

I would disagree we use the NT to interpret the OT. The NT is not new revelation or of higher importance than the OT. The NT is essentially a commentary and fulfilment of the promises made in the OT, most basically speaking. Without understanding the OT completely _first_, we have no prayer to understand the NT, Christ and His words, or the teachings of the Apostles.

No one disagrees that salvation is for the elect alone, that is a non issue. The disagreement is whether or not the promise is made to "you and your offspring," (which it is) and how that relates to the covenant concept. The covenant of promise is misunderstood, in my opinion, by Baptists. I would go so far to say their misunderstanding of covenantal concepts and what exactly a covenant is is the basic crux behind all debate on issues relating to CT between paedos and credos.

If we understand God's covenants of promise with man as having a dual aspect (that of a "legal obligation" and a "communion of life"), we can come closer to understanding God's dealings with not only His people in general but also how He consistently (and without change or variation) deals with families covenantally throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I would disagree we use the NT to interpret the OT.



Surely you don't mean this? You don't agree that scripture interprets scripture?

JH


----------



## kceaster (Mar 30, 2005)

Gabriel is right. He may correct me if I misrepresent what he was getting at, but basically he's saying that if you don't understand the OT meaning, you're not automatically going to come up with the correct meaning by the NT rendering. Yes Scripture interprets Scripture. But this means to me that the OT passages inform the NT and vice versa. Interpretation involves knowledge on both sides.

Say you were an interpreter for the American Embassy to China. In order for you to interpret for a chinese person to an american, you have to know chinese and vice versa. In other words, you have to be bilingual. It is the same between the Testaments. They are bilingual. You have to know one to inform the other. One cannot only know the NT to know the OT. It just doesn't work that way.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 30, 2005)

Well I agree with what you are saying, Kevin. Gabe, is that what you meant?

I would say, however, that however well you may understand the Old Testament, without the New Testament certain things would be very much veiled. For example many of the references to Christ.

JH


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 30, 2005)

Yes, that is what I was saying. Go through the NT and see all the times Christ mentions "The Law and the Prophets" or the "Books of Moses" and see how many times he makes very strong references to them as being authoritative. If Christ had such a high, priority view of the OT, we should too. To understand Christ is to first understand the OT.


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Yes, that is what I was saying. Go through the NT and see all the times Christ mentions "The Law and the Prophets" or the "Books of Moses" and see how many times he makes very strong references to them as being authoritative. If Christ had such a high, priority view of the OT, we should too. To understand Christ is to first understand the OT.



I agree but that doesn't invalidate what I said about the NT better revealing the OT. If we have prophetic passage in the Old Testament that is more clearly explained by a didactic passage in the New Testament then we call allow that to be the interpretation of the Old Testament passage.

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> > And one question I would really like you to flesh out. How does Christ fulfilling the types and shadows of the OT promises change the historical family orientation of the covenant? How was the family structure a type which Christ fulfilled? What was it a type of? What would be the family's anti-type?
> ...


You didn't answer the question. How does Christ's coming change the historical administration of the covenant? What specifically did Christ do to fulfill the OT shadow of the family, which is present in every covenant (except for the NT by your interpretation)? And how are non-saved children blessed by the covenant when you must have faith and be elect to obtain the blessings?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



I believe that Christ's coming fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant Rom 4:16-25. Therefore the is no longer an administration of a covenant sign that gives us rights to the Land of Promise Heb 4:8-10. We come heir of all things in Christ (Rev 21:7). In regards to the term 'blessings' I mean to be made holy. The child is set aside to receive certain benefits because of the believing parents i.e. the law of God. Hope this helps.

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 30, 2005)

So you don't think Paul meant anything by saying we are brought into the Abrahamic promise? He was wrong? I'm confused. How can it be fulfilled or done away with (in Christ) if it says the Gentiles have been brought into the tree and have been drawn near to the covenants of promise through the blood of Christ?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> So you don't think Paul meant anything by saying we are brought into the Abrahamic promise? He was wrong? I'm confused. How can it be fulfilled or done away with (in Christ) if it says the Gentiles have been brought into the tree and have been drawn near to the covenants of promise through the blood of Christ?



What I'm saying is that the Abrahamic Covenant has been eschatologicalized in the The New Covenant Rom 4:23-25 and we are now members of the New Covenant by faith in the promise seed, both Jew and Gentiles alike Gal 3:28-29

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 30, 2005)

> What I'm saying is that the Abrahamic Covenant has been eschatologicalized in the The New Covenant Rom 4:23-25



Romans 4:23-25 speaks of the fact that we are brought into the Abrahamic promise under the New Covenant administration just as Abraham and the Israelites were. It speaks nothing of "fulfillment" or "doing away with" of the promises and makeup of the covenant.

The very same language was used by Moses to the congregation of Israel in Deuteronomy. He made a point of emphasis that the covenant was not made with their fathers alone, but with their fathers' children, who he was now speaking to. The whole point is that the covenant is everlasting and made with someone 500 years later just as much as it was made with the people who first witnessed its institution.

*Deut 4:31 For the Lord your God is a merciful God. He will not leave you or destroy you or forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them

Deut 5:3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.

Deut 7:12 And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the Lord your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers.*


With that covenantal and Scrpitural precedent in mind, these verses make a lot more sense and it is clear to see the intention:

*Rom 4:23-25 But the words "œit was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.*




> we are now members of the New Covenant by faith in the promise seed



The CoG has _always_ been by faith. To say it is _now_ by faith in the New Covenant is an unnecessary distinction.




[Edited on 3-30-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > What I'm saying is that the Abrahamic Covenant has been eschatologicalized in the The New Covenant Rom 4:23-25
> ...



Notice in verse 34 it says that the imputation of righteousness is only given to those who believe. Abraham's seed is Christ, only those in Christ are in the New Covenant. God has kept his Covenant with Abrahman because all those who have faith in Jesus Christ are saved. 

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Notice in verse 34 it says that the imputation of righteousness is only given to those who believe. Abraham's seed is Christ, only those in Christ are in the New Covenant. God has kept his Covenant with Abrahman because all those who have faith in Jesus Christ are saved.



You are correct, righteousness is only imputed through faith. But that has always been the case in every covenant administration. Yet that didn't negate the historical administration of the covenant through families as shown with Abraham. The promise to Abraham was to him AND his descendants, and that promise is also extended to us who believe like Abraham. You can't just divorce the spiritual aspect of the covenant from its histrical administration. What Paul is explaining about Abraham has always been the case. That's his argument in Romans 4, 9, and Gal. 3.


----------



## VanVos (Mar 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



I agree my friend that salvation has always been by grace through faith. But I'm also saying that according to Hebrews 8 the Covenant of community no longer has non-elect persons. The promised seed has come, therefore there is no longer a community that is set apart by God until the Messiah comes from their line. Eph 4:11-18

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 30, 2005)

> But I'm also saying that according to Hebrews 8 the Covenant of community no longer has non-elect persons.



Where are you getting that idea in Heb. 8?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 31, 2005)

Hebrews 8:10-12 says all in the covenant will know the Lord, that is all in the covenant have eternal life John 17:3. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses. 

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Hebrews 8:10-12 says all in the covenant will know the Lord, that is all in the covenant have eternal life John 17:3. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses.
> 
> VanVos



The problem is that the assertion that the fundamental nature of the covenant has changed when that isn't suggested in Hebrews 8. What has changed is that we have greater revelation of who God is and what he has done for us in Christ. The covenant has always been admiinistered through families. How does the greater revelation of God to His people change that structure? The formula has always been "I will be your God and you will be my people." When Gentiles are engrafted, they become part of this historical adminsitration of the same covenant. What's "new" about the covenant is not the covenant itself, but the revelation of what God is doing in it. It is renewed and clarified, as every covenant administration has done when made. But I'll refer you to Vos on that point  

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## VanVos (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VanVos_
> ...



Thanks for the Vos reference 

In regards to the newness of the New Covenant in Hebrews 8. I believe the New Covenant is not only different in administration but also different in kind. Heb 8:9 says that it will not be like the covenant that God made in the wilderness (the Siniatic Covenant):

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 


I believe the Siniatic Covenant was a conditonal covenant, but the New Covenant is unconditional. I think the antithetical nature of these two Covenants is seen through out the New Testament.

The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

These women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are slaves ... but the Jerusalem above is free (Galatians 4:24, 26)

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13) 

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 31, 2005)

> For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13)



Context, context, context. What's the very next verse - describing that which is obsolete and ready to pass away (Ch 9. v. 1)?:

*Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.*

What is passing away, then? The entire covenant? No, its administration. The New Covenant has a more glorious administration, where the people are all priests of God and can now know him in a personal, relational way through Christ, the better Mediator (being not a man).

Context.


----------



## VanVos (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13)
> ...



Sure we have to keep it in context. And I believe I am. One of the differences between the two covenants is the first is violable the second is not. 

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.

And yes it's true that Hebrews 9 addresses the ordinances of the Siniatic Covenant. But that still change the fact that the Covenant as whole was ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13, Gal 3:19.

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

Another thing you may wish to consider is the context of those passages in Gal. and Hebrews. Both are addressing jewish misunderstandings of the Mosaic covenant. They thought the Mosaic covenant an end in itself. In these passages, the author is clearly teaching that is not the case but that the Mosaic administration was teaching us the nature of the relationship in the one covenant of grace. 
When the Messiah was revealed, it didn't change the structure of the family within the covenant, because that wasn't established in Moses, but in Abraham, Noah, and Adam before. Even if you would argue a seperate distinct covenant with Moses that is completely irradicated, it would not change the nature of the historical administration established long before the giving of the law, with Abraham.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## VanVos (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Another thing you may wish to consider is the context of those passages in Gal. and Hebrews. Both are addressing jewish misunderstandings of the Mosaic covenant. They thought the Mosaic covenant an end in itself. In these passages, the author is clearly teaching that is not the case but that the Mosaic administration was teaching us the nature of the relationship in the one covenant of grace.
> When the Messiah was revealed, it didn't change the structure of the family within the covenant, because that wasn't established in Moses, but in Abraham, Noah, and Adam before. Even if you would argue a seperate distinct covenant with Moses that is completely irradicated, it would not change the nature of the historical administration established long before the giving of the law, with Abraham.
> 
> [Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]



Here's an article that best explains my position on the Mosaic Law
http://www.upper-register.com/sermons/gal3_sermon.html

I'm not denying that covenant of Grace didn't begin with Adam, I affirmed this in my opening post. But I do believe, as I've explained in previous posts, that certain administration of the Covenant of Grace have been fulfilled with coming of the Messiah and the establishing of the New Covenant. 

Thanks again for your thoughts

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 31, 2005)

OK. 

How does this understanding remove the family structure in the administration of the covenant? The author is a paedo-baptist as well as the other authors on that site. He certainly doesn't think that the typical fulfillment of the Mosaic law does away with the family structure in the covenant. What dots are you connecting to come to that conclusion?


----------



## VanVos (Mar 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> OK.
> 
> How does this understanding remove the family structure in the administration of the covenant? The author is a paedo-baptist as well as the other authors on that site. He certainly doesn't think that the typical fulfillment of the Mosaic law does away with the family structure in the covenant. What dots are you connecting to come to that conclusion?



I think you misunderstand, I was only presenting my position on the Siniatic Covenant, and how it has passed away. I would argue we no longer have non-elect person in the covenant community because the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants are fulfilled by Christ, and the NC only includes the elect. 

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 31, 2005)

> I would argue we no longer have non-elect person in the covenant community because the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants are fulfilled by Christ, and the NC only includes the elect.



Uhhh, isn't the "covenant community" in the New Covenant the Church? Are you saying we can (or even worse, should) discern the hearts of men as to whether or not they are elect? You better not be found bringing your kids to Church, or you will be found inconsistent; that is, unless you can conclusively prove to me that the "covenant community" is something _other_ than the visible Church, at least from _our_ point of view.

Isn't the Church today the same Church of Old? I believe Romans 11 (and numerous other passages, cf. Gal 3:28; Eph 2:16; 4:4; Col 3:11; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 10:12) show this to be the case. Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed (1 Cor 10:1-5).

*Rom 11:17Â But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing rootÂ of the olive tree, 18Â do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Â Then you will say, "œBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20Â That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21Â For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Â Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.*

We are the same olive tree, with the same covenantal obligations and stipulations.

The CoG has always been unconditional and conditional - It is conditional because we must have saving faith; Unconditional because God provides this faith to the elect.

The CoG has also always been unbreakable, because God is faithful to His promises and will not fail us - HOWEVER, as Scripture makes abundantly clear, _men_ CAN and in fact DO break covenant with God. This happened in the OC administration and it can happen in the NC administration.

It is bad exegesis to read Heb 8 as saying "we can no longer break covenant with God," when the emphasis is on the fact that God renewed the covenant and made it more glorious _despite the fact that_ the Jews broke their covenant with Him. Nothing changed in the NC, as Rom 11:22 shows us so very clearly. God's grace is made more abundant when we see how He will not neglect to be faithful to His people, covenantally, even though we are always failing Him.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that there are not only NC promises and spiritual blessings, but curses as well (1 Cor 11:27) and that we, in fact _can_ still be cut off from the covenant (Matt 22:11-14; Jn 15:6; Heb 2:1-4; 4:1-2; 5:11 - 6:8; 10:26-31; Jas 1:24; 2 Pet 1:9-11; 2:20-22; Jude 17-21).

In fact, the most compelling passage in the NT for this is found in Hebrews 10:26-31, where we basically find the concept, "So you thought breaking covenant with God was bad under the Old Covenant? Well, it is ten times worse if you break the New Covenant!"

*Heb 10:26Â  For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27Â but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Â Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29Â How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30Â For we know him who said, "œVengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "œThe Lord will judge his people." 31Â It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.*

We have a couple options when we take all of these passages into consideration. Only one of them is acceptable.

1. We become Arminians and believe (like Baptists) that the NC is salvation only and that these people are losing their salvation.
2. We say the NC is salvation only, but that these passages are hypothetical or talking about backsliding (i.e. we become horrible exegetes and extremely inconsistent).
3. We understand that you can be legally bound to a covenant and not receive its blessings and benefits; We are able to break our end of the covenant agreement, and many often do.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## VanVos (Mar 31, 2005)

> Uhhh, isn't the "covenant community" in the New Covenant the Church? Are you saying we can (or even worse, should) discern the hearts of men as to whether or not they are elect? You better not be found bringing your kids to Church, or you will be found inconsistent; that is, unless you can conclusively prove to me that the "covenant community" is something _other_ than the visible Church, at least from _our_ point of view.



First Let define covenant community: Those in the Covenant.
Second, no we can not completely discern the hearts of man we are to go by their profession. Just because someone goes through the waters of baptism doesn't mean they're in the New Covenant.



> Isn't the Church today the same Church of Old? I believe Romans 11 (and numerous other passages, cf. Gal 3:28; Eph 2:16; 4:4; Col 3:11; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 10:12) show this to be the case. Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed (1 Cor 10:1-5).



Yes Israel was the church under age. Still don't see how that effects my postion on the nature of the New Covenant.



> *Rom 11:17Â But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing rootÂ of the olive tree, 18Â do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19Â Then you will say, "œBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20Â That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21Â For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22Â Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.*



I explained my interpretation of these verses in previous post. Again I do not see a Covenant being addressed in this passage.




> The CoG has also always been unbreakable, because God is faithful to His promises and will not fail us - HOWEVER, as Scripture makes abundantly clear, _men_ CAN and in fact DO break covenant with God. This happened in the OC administration and it can happen in the NC administration


 Really show me where it talks about the New Covenant that is in Christ's blood been broken.



> It is bad exegesis to read Heb 8 as saying "we can no longer break covenant with God," when the emphasis is on the fact that God renewed the covenant and made it more glorious _despite the fact that_ the Jews broke their covenant with Him. Nothing changed in the NC, as Rom 11:22 shows us so very clearly. God's grace is made more abundant when we see how He will not neglect to be faithful to His people, covenantally, even though we are always failing Him.



Bad exegesis? Nothing changed in the NC? how so? when the New Covenant is said to be a better covenant based on better promises with a new Mediator. 



> The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that there are not only NC promises and spiritual blessings, but curses as well (1 Cor 11:27) and that we, in fact _can_ still be cut off from the covenant (Matt 22:11-14; Jn 15:6; Heb 2:1-4; 4:1-2; 5:11 - 6:8; 10:26-31; Jas 1:24; 2 Pet 1:9-11; 2:20-22; Jude 17-21).



Again where in these passages does it say a covenant is broken...show me? Most of these verses speak of judgment on those who reject Chirst.



> In fact, the most compelling passage in the NT for this is found in Hebrews 10:26-31, where we basically find the concept, "So you thought breaking covenant with God was bad under the Old Covenant? Well, it is ten times worse if you break the New Covenant!"
> 
> *Heb 10:26Â  For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27Â but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Â Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29Â How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30Â For we know him who said, "œVengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "œThe Lord will judge his people." 31Â It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.*



No ten times worst if you reject Christ. The blood of the Covenant which he was sanctified is reference to Chirst not to the individual who rejects Christ.



> We have a couple options when we take all of these passages into consideration. Only one of them is acceptable.
> 
> 1. We become Arminians and believe (like Baptists) that the NC is salvation only and that these people are losing their salvation.
> 2. We say the NC is salvation only, but that these passages are hypothetical or talking about backsliding (i.e. we become horrible exegetes and extremely inconsistent).
> 3. We understand that you can be legally bound to a covenant and not receive its blessings and benefits; We are able to break our end of the covenant agreement, and many often do.



Or Option 4. We have have the invisible and visible church, and some in the visible church are false professers.

Actually I do believe we agree on a lot. The only really major difference is that some passages you see a reference to a Covenant where as I do not. Thanks for your thoughts.

VanVos



[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 31, 2005)

Again, as others have suggested, I don't think you understand the idea of a covenant (as in the CoW). Keep studying. Grace and peace.


----------



## Robin (Apr 1, 2005)

Law & Gospel - Works & Grace

In Redemptive history, the same Gospel covenant that God made with Adam (Gen. 3:15) was renewed with Abraham. The promise was re-stated, "I will be your God, and to your children." The sign in Genesis 15 was the cutting of animals-- the stipulation remained faith. For this reason Scripture says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15.6).

In Gen. 17.10-14, circumcision became the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace. The Lord calls the sign of circumcision "My covenant." 

The covenant of works did not disappear in history. It is repeated throughout the Scriptures each time the Law is read and God demands perfect righteousness from sinners. EX: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" (Gal 3:10). When Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "do this and live" (Luke 10.28) he was repeating the covenant of works.

Plus, the covenant of grace is repeated throughout the history of redemption. When God says, "I will be your God, you will be my people" he repeats the promise he made to Adam. The Gospel promise is repeated to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Moses and finally fulfilled in Christ and is then repeated to us through the Apostles (Acts 2:39.)

These two covenants unify all of Scripture.

R.


----------



## Robin (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Again, as others have suggested, I don't think you understand the idea of a covenant (as in the CoW). Keep studying. Grace and peace.



My Dear Gabriel,

If you get time, do check-out Lee Irons's site:

http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/two_adams.html

This article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.

I stand with VanVos, Btw. Don't underestimate the value of his recommendation, OK?

In edification,

r.


----------



## VanVos (Apr 1, 2005)

> My Dear Gabriel,
> 
> If you get time, do check-out Lee Irons's site:
> 
> ...



That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all. 

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 1, 2005)

VanVos,

Great posts. Very well articulated. Your swimming upstream.  Keep swimming.

Dustin...


----------



## VanVos (Apr 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Areopagus_
> VanVos,
> 
> Great posts. Very well articulated. Your swimming upstream.  Keep swimming.
> ...



Thanks...will do...although some might say it would be easier to use the bridge


----------



## Areopagus (Apr 1, 2005)

Bridge? Um, would that be synonymous with compromise for the sake of tolerance? Te he.

Dustin...


----------



## Robin (Apr 2, 2005)

[quoteThis article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.[/quote]

That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all. 

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos] [/quote]

Reverend VanVos.....do you give sermons from Kline's point of view? In a Assembly of God?

Just wondering....

Robin


----------



## VanVos (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> [quoteThis article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.



That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all. 

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos] [/quote]

Reverend VanVos.....do you give sermons from Kline's point of view? In a Assembly of God?

Just wondering....

Robin [/quote]

I do indeed. I'm sure my dispensational brothers and sisters will not be too pleased. But really I just focus on the exegesis of scripture and pray that God will use it to bring people into a deeper understanding of His truth.

VanVos


----------



## Robin (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Reverend VanVos.....do you give sermons from Kline's point of view? In a Assembly of God?

Just wondering....

Robin [/quote]

I do indeed. I'm sure my dispensational brothers and sisters will not be too pleased. But really I just focus on the exegesis of scripture and pray that God will use it to bring people into a deeper understanding of His truth.

VanVos [/quote]

WOW! GOooooo, VanVos! 

R.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 2, 2005)

Jonathon, 
From one A/G guy to another (insert secret handshake here  ), you rock! There are more of us than many think. 

This is an excellent thread. Keep it up.

Lawrence


----------



## VanVos (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Jonathon,
> From one A/G guy to another (insert secret handshake here  ), you rock! There are more of us than many think.
> 
> ...



Thanks man...it's good to know that I'm not alone.

Blessings Jonathan


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 3, 2005)

Are there really that many reformed folk in the A/G? I left long ago because I found none.


----------



## VanVos (Apr 4, 2005)

Well there is at least two, Lawrence and I

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## LawrenceU (Apr 4, 2005)

Patrick,
It is small, but growing number. There are things happening in both directions in the A/G. More than I can go into here and right now. Nonetheless, it is a shaking time in many ways.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 4, 2005)

That is very good to hear. They have a special place in my heart because I was born and raised there and still have some family and friends there. I pray the Holy Spirit brings a true revival to them.


----------



## Goodison park (Apr 6, 2005)

Sounds like this VanVos knows a thing or two. What an array of complimants.


----------



## VanVos (Apr 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Goodison park_
> Sounds like this VanVos knows a thing or two. What an array of complimants.


 Hurray!!!

VanVos

P.S. Don't I know you from somewhere? Haven't we met before?


----------

