# An attack on covenant theology



## ReformedWretch (Nov 18, 2004)

This was directed at me on another forum;

Without trying to explain all the details of covenant theology I will simply say that it has many problems.

It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture.

It tries to unify scripture by saying that Biblical distinctions are merely different phases of the same Covenant of Grace. For example, they insist that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the same as the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet, the apostle Paul asserts the distinctiveness of these two covenants in Galatians 3:18. Even a cursory reading of these two covenants reveals that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional whereas the Mosaic Covenant had many conditions attached.

It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom.

It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church.

It uses a double standard with regard to interpretation of Scripture. Covenant theologians use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events. When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine´s allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation.

It places the believer under the law.

This last point, in my opinion, is probably the most devastating blow against Christian doctrine and practice. The Galatian error of law and works has plagued the church from its very beginning. Covenant theology has only served to promote this error.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> This was directed at me on another forum;
> 
> Without trying to explain all the details of covenant theology I will simply say that it has many problems.
> ...



Is the Trinity ever blatantly mentioned in Scripture? What about women partaking of the Lord's Supper?



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It tries to unify scripture by saying that Biblical distinctions are merely different phases of the same Covenant of Grace. For example, they insist that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the same as the Abrahamic Covenant. Yet, the apostle Paul asserts the distinctiveness of these two covenants in Galatians 3:18. Even a cursory reading of these two covenants reveals that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional whereas the Mosaic Covenant had many conditions attached.



That is a straw man. Commandments that are breakable being present in the Mosaic Covenant does not make the covenant as a whole temporal and conditional. Under that logic, the fact that there are breakable commandments and conditional blessings under the New Covenant would thus make it a conditional covenant as a whole as well.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of grace and the gospel of the kingdom.



What does this person think about the fact that "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3, ESV)? And what is to be made of the fact that the Book of Life written before the foundation of the world (containing all the names of God's redeemed) is "the book of life _of the Lamb that was slain_" (Rev. 13:8)?



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church.



Quite the contrary. It rather sets each in its proper place, the elect being the spiritual Israel in both Testaments, national Israel being its external expression under the Old, and the Church being its external expression under the New. The first of those facts is impossible to deny because of Christ being the spiritual redeemer of both Testaments as shown by Revelation 13:8. Those attacking Covenant Theology would agree with the second of those facts. The latter of those facts is shown by the many New Testament Scriptures speaking of those who trust in Christ (the Church) as being the one who are spiritually of true Israel under the New Testament.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It uses a double standard with regard to interpretation of Scripture. Covenant theologians use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events. When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine´s allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation.



This is once again a straw man. It is said that we "use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for passages concerning future events," and that is called a double-standard. It is simply an acknowledgment of the different genres of Scripture. Exodus, Song of Solomon, Romans and Revelation all have very different genres, and it is a non-sequitor to call recognition of that fact a "double-standard." By their definition, ask them if they understand all of Jesus' parables as being historical. If not, then they are using a double-standard by their definition. That example should put genre-interpretation Covenant Theologians use with respect to apocalyptic passages into perspective.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> It places the believer under the law.



If that statement is criticizing Covenant Theology for putting believers under law in a salvific way, it is simply a misunderstanding of Covenant Theology. If it is critizinig Covenant Theology for putting believers under law in a sanctification and lifestyle way, I suggest the person making it take a single glance at all the times during His earthly life that Jesus talked about the law's eternal importance in the believer's life.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> This last point, in my opinion, is probably the most devastating blow against Christian doctrine and practice. The Galatian error of law and works has plagued the church from its very beginning. Covenant theology has only served to promote this error.



Ask Him to elaborate on just what he thinks Covenant Theology claims about the place of law and works in the believer's life, as I expect this criticism to be similar in nature to the above one. I'm on a public computer right now, but when I get back to my laptop I'll attach a list of Scriptures supporting Lordship Salvation, which is the doctrine that good works are the inevitable fruit and confirmation of true faith.

Also recommend that person read Packer's primer on Covenant Theology.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 18, 2004)

Here are the Scriptures supporting Lordship Salvation.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 18, 2004)

Thanks again Chris!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 18, 2004)

You're welcome, Adam. Glad to help!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 18, 2004)




----------



## lwadkins (Nov 19, 2004)




----------



## JohnV (Nov 19, 2004)

I would recommend he read On Christian Doctrine before caricaturing Augustine's interpretations. It is often noted that Calvin followed Augustine in many ways. But do people take note of how Calvin follows Augustine but doesn't utilize that so-called 'allegorical' method of Augustine? How is it that he 'follows' Augustine, but his interpretive methodology is so different? Well, its not so different. Calvin cleans it up a bit by removing the cultural leanings of the time, but maintains that love fulfills the law and the entire gospel, which was Augustine's main concern throughout his book on how to handle Scripture. 

It is from this that we get the historically-grammatically-inherent Covenants, displayed in the past, present and future of the Bible.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 22, 2004)

Well, I took all you guys recomendations and got ignored!

Instead the attacker started a NEW thread saying this;

The Bible has two under-lying layers of foundation stone: one is called Dispensational understanding of Scripture, and the other is called Covenantal understanding. Both are inseparable, and required to understand the Scriptures, they act as keys to unlocking hard to understand Scriptures. Another note, at any one time, more than one covenant may be in force, while only one dispensation will ever be in force at a time.

So with some teachings of dispensational theology that lean to far to dispensationalism they tend to lose sight of the covenantal relationship we have with God and because of this they get caught up in error. The same is true for those who lean to far to the covenantal theology because they lose sight of the dispensations of God

There are two ways of understanding the Scriptures, the literal meaning and the allegorical, or symbolic meaning "“ the Bible believer takes the Bible literally, unless the Bible tells you to take it allegorically. The problem with some dispensational theology is that they seem to not see this distinction and take to many things literally while the covenant theology places much more emphasis on the allegorical method of understanding and miss many places of literal understand that speaks from the word of God

A covenant is the basis for a relationship, an agreement between two parties that allows them to work together or literally a contract (Mt 26:14,15). There is no way for people to have a relationship with God without an agreement, a covenant between them concerning what was expected by both parties.

The problem with covenant theology is that they don´t recognize the contracts that God made with natural Israel and have allegorized away the nation Israel out of the picture by taking their place in prophecy and in the promises God made to natural Israel.

In covenant theology there is a tendency not to recognize all the covenants of God and what they were and who they were with and seem to just place value on two or three covenants. The basic covenants that are recognized by covenant theology is the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. There are quite a few more covenants that are plainly visible in the word of God they don´t mention

There are the covenants in this form
Quote:
1) God and all mankind
2) God and the descendants of a particular person (i.e., Abraham)
3) God and His Son
4) God and the devil


There are covenants that cover these ideas
Quote:
1) Some Biblical covenants deal with only the physical Jews and God.
2) Other covenants only deal with believers, and not the Jews (physically).
3) Some covenants deal with all people and God.


These are some covenants God has made in this way,
Quote:
1) Adamic
2) Noahic
3) Abrahamic
4) Mosaic
5) Davidic
6) Christian
7) Eternal


The idea of covenant theology is that the Church is now Israel and natural Israel is no longer the object of Gods promises. It goes something like this with Covenant folks: 
Quote:
Israel, who? The Jews, who? The Jews returning to the Holy Land, what are you talking about?


Paul makes it clear that when God is through with reaching the Gentiles, then the whole of Israel will be saved, and The Deliverer (Messiah) will come from Zion" (Rom. 11:25-26)

In Romans 11:29 it says "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

Just in the book of Amos alone there are muiltple promises made by God to natural Israel of there complete redemption in the last days and since God is not like man in that He honors all His promises then the time is coming that all of natural Israel will be restored to there land and inherit the promises made by God throughout the Old Testament.

Covenant theology is replacement theology and God does not practice replacement theology He totally does what He promises.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 22, 2004)

If anyone would like to take some return shots at this guy YOURSELVES by all means!

http://www.fresh-hope.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22507

I would enjoy that!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Nov 22, 2004)

What's the deal with arguing about something when you obviously have no knowledge of the thing you are attacking? *sigh*


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Well, I took all you guys recomendations and got ignored!



Keep pushing whatever you said before, pointing out that it was never answered.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Instead the attacker started a NEW thread saying this;
> 
> The Bible has two under-lying layers of foundation stone: one is called Dispensational understanding of Scripture, and the other is called Covenantal understanding. Both are inseparable, and required to understand the Scriptures, they act as keys to unlocking hard to understand Scriptures. Another note, at any one time, more than one covenant may be in force, while only one dispensation will ever be in force at a time.
> ...



He seems to think that pure Covenant Theology would not allow for _any_ discontinuities between the Old and New Testaments, and that since there are discontinuities, full Covenant Theology is not true, but must be "blended" with Dispensationalism to account for the discontinuities. That is simply a plain misunderstanding of what Covenant Theology is, and the fact that he made it shows he did not read Packer's primer, which explains that it is a _hermeneutic_ that states we are to _assume continuity unless Scripture specifically mentions discontinuity_ - it is complete ignorance to think that it allows no discontinuity! That is equivalent to taking "innocent until proven guilty" as always having to mean innocent!



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> A covenant is the basis for a relationship, an agreement between two parties that allows them to work together or literally a contract (Mt 26:14,15). There is no way for people to have a relationship with God without an agreement, a covenant between them concerning what was expected by both parties.
> 
> The problem with covenant theology is that they don't recognize the contracts that God made with natural Israel and have allegorized away the nation Israel out of the picture by taking their place in prophecy and in the promises God made to natural Israel.



We don't recognize the contracts God made with national Israel? Hypothetically assume that we were to put a similar charge to them, accusing them of not recognizing the contracts that God made with the Church because of their view that God's focus will shift from the Church to national Israel in the future. They would respond by saying, "No, we recognize the contracts God made with the Church, we just believe that that contract will be sufficiently fulfilled and completed at that time in the future." Well, same thing with our view on national Israel - God has not broken any promises to national Israel, His time for fulfilling those promises was simply completed at the beginning of the Church age.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> In covenant theology there is a tendency not to recognize all the covenants of God and what they were and who they were with and seem to just place value on two or three covenants. The basic covenants that are recognized by covenant theology is the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. There are quite a few more covenants that are plainly visible in the word of God they don´t mention
> 
> There are the covenants in this form
> ...



This has to be the most flawed misunderstanding of Covenant Theology I have ever seen. He says we don't recognize those covenants because we only recognize the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace? Tim LaHaye would probably not even misrepresent CT to such an extent! We see those covenants as _administrations_ of the Covenant of Grace. The fact that he did not know that, but thought that we denied covenants like the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Christian (which we would call New) and eternal (which we would call Covenant of Redemption) because we believe in the Covenant of Grace shows more than anything else he has said that he has absolutely no idea what CT teaches whatsoever. Give him this link to Matt's chart.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> The idea of covenant theology is that the Church is now Israel and natural Israel is no longer the object of Gods promises. It goes something like this with Covenant folks:
> Quote:
> Israel, who? The Jews, who? The Jews returning to the Holy Land, what are you talking about?
> ...



Ask him what he makes of all the New Testament passages speaking of those descending from Abraham not necessarily being his true children, and of national Israel and spiritual Israel's distinction. He can say we try to ignore parts of the Bible all he wants, but until he has an interpretation for those passages, he is the only one doing the ignoring, since we do not ignore God's promises to Israel, but rather interpret them in light of those passages.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> In Romans 11:29 it says "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."
> 
> Just in the book of Amos alone there are muiltple promises made by God to natural Israel of there complete redemption in the last days and since God is not like man in that He honors all His promises then the time is coming that all of natural Israel will be restored to there land and inherit the promises made by God throughout the Old Testament.
> ...



The Senior Pastor at my church is in the middle of a sermon series on Romans 9-11 right now. Yesterday he preached on chapter nine, which is where Paul addresses the very objection this person is currently raising! This person is saying here that since CT sees national Israel as turned away from God and God as having no intent to focus on them again, that CT denies that God truly and always does what He promises. In verses 1-3, Paul speaks of his anguish and sorrow for the sake of his brothers, and in verses 4-5 explains that he is referring to the Israelites, who have rejected God. _Immediately_ after that, in verses 6-13, Paul explains how their turning away does not mean that God is unjust and does not keep His promises. And in those verses, how does Paul explain God's justice in light of national Israel's falling away? Does he say, "They will one day turn to God again, when He brings them to Him once more"? No! He says, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." He then proceeds to explain the mystery and justice of God's sovereign election.

Right here in Romans 9, Paul is speaking of his sorrow because of national Israel's falling away, and immediately anticipates the objection that that falling away constitutes breaking promises on God's part, and answers the objection by declaring that it is not national Israel that possesses the eternal promise, but the elect! God must have known people like the person you are currently debating with would raise that exact objection when the Spirit inspired that response of Paul's against the false notion that national Israel was the eternal Israel.

Keep us updated on how things go!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 22, 2004)

Thanks Chris!!!

But I am certain he will ignore me, or start a new post.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 22, 2004)




----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 25, 2004)

Here is the reply!

First: there are the unfulfilled promises of the Jewish covenants, promises that can only be fulfilled in a Messianic Kingdom. Second: there are the unfulfilled prophecies of the Jewish prophets. There are numerous prophecies of the Old Testament that speak of the coming of the Messiah Who will reign on David's Throne, and rule over a peaceful Kingdom. There is a great amount of material in the Old Testament on the Messianic Kingdom, and the belief in a Messianic Kingdom rests on the basis of a literal interpretation of this massive material.

The only real contribution that the Book of Revelation makes to the knowledge of the Kingdom is to disclose just how long the Messianic Kingdom will last--namely one thousand years--for which the term Millennium is used. This is the one key truth concerning the Kingdom that was not revealed in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 2:2-4

In this passage, Isaiah describes one of the major characteristics of the Messianic Kingdom, that of universal peace. While differences between nations will arise, such differences will no longer be settled by military conflicts, but only by the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Even the art of warfare will be forgotten.

Isaiah 11:6-9

The universal peace described in the earlier passage will extend even to the animal kingdom. All animals will return to the Edenic state and become vegetarians (vv. 6-7). The oldest of enemies, man and snake, will be able to live in compatibility in that day (v. 8), for the knowledge of God will permeate throughout the entire world, affecting man and animal alike (v. 9).

Micah 4:1-5

The first three verses of this passage are the same as those found in Isaiah 2:2-4 that speak of the Mountain of Jehovah's House becoming the center of attention to the world's Gentile population, the Kingdom being characterized as a time of messianic teaching, and the absence of war as universal peace permeates the entire Kingdom. Micah adds that the Kingdom will be a time of personal peace and prosperity (v. 4), with Israel's total allegiance being to God (v. 5).

Jeremiah 23:5-6.

Again, there is a descendant of David Who will sit on David's Throne. Yet this descendant is called Jehovah our righteousness, so the One sitting on David's Throne is none other than the God-Man. And because it is the God-Man, His reign will be characterized by wisdom, justice, and righteousness. It is in Him that the security of Israel will lie.

The second passage is Jeremiah 33:14-17. Beginning with the reaffirmation of God's intention to fulfill His covenant with David (v. 14), Jeremiah restates the basic points of his statements in 23:5-6 (vv. 15-16). Under no circumstances will the House of David be allowed to become extinct (v. 17). The rest of Jeremiah 33 continues to reaffirm God's intention to fulfill all the conditions of the Davidic Covenant, and these passages will be dealt with in the next chapter.

Though the Throne of the Messiah is to be established in Jerusalem, the reign of the Messianic King will extend over the entire earth, according to Zechariah 14:9. In that day, Zechariah points out, the Messiah will be the head of the world and will be considered by all humanity to be the one God.

These Old Testament prophets all stated the belief in a millenial kingdom. And all these prophets stated that the Messiah would return first to establish that kingdom and that kingdom would be literal and on earth.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 25, 2004)

Unless I'm missing something, that "reply" is not a reply at all, but simply a restatement of his already-stated views. The claims and interpretations in his reply all rest upon the initial assumption that the references to the thousand years and to David's throne are all literal - starting from that assumption, he then gives his take on the quoted passages. But that assumption is the very thing for which he has not given an adequate defense, and he has once again simply ignored the challenges posed to him and re-asserted his original position. Furthermore, even if he _were_ to establish the fact that Christ's future reign on earth will be literal, he would then have to show that it is the literal reign as understood by Dispensationalism, and not as understood by Postmillennialism. He has not answered anything.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 25, 2004)

Welcome to my world.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 26, 2004)

New reply

A new method of Biblical interpretation known as Alexandrian theology greatly changed the view of scripture. Origen (185-254) and other scholars in Alexandria developed a system of Biblical interpretation based on allegory. Origen and his contemporaries were greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosophy. They tried to integrate this into their theology. According to Greek philosophy all physical matter was inherently evil. Therefore the idea of a literal earthy, millennium with physical blessings could only be erroneous. This allegorical or spiritualizing method of interpretation allowed these theologians to read almost any meaning they desired into the Bible. Thus they were able to do away with a literal return of Christ to establish a physical earthly millennial kingdom.


All of these factors set the stage for the rejection of premillennialism. In the early days of his Christian faith Augustine (354-430) was premillennial. However, through time he abandoned the idea of a literal return of Christ to establish a physical kingdom on earth.

He used this new allegorical method of interpretation to explain away the literal return of Christ and thus amillennialism was born. In his book, The City of God, Augustine taught that the Universal Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the millennium began with Christ´s first coming.

When the church lost the hope of the imminent return of Christ it plunged headlong into the dark ages. The seeds of false interpretation bore fruit giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a works-based religion. Augustine´s amillennial teaching continued to be the standard view of organized Christendom until the 17th century. Occasionally premillennial groups challenged that doctrine through out the dark ages, but they were a small voice compared to the powerful Roman Catholic church.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 26, 2004)

Wow, he keeps it coming (if he only had a clue! )

You might be wondering, "how does a doctrine about the "˜end times´ affect the teaching of law and grace?" That´s a good question. Augustine and his contemporaries faced a dilemma.

It had been years since the Lord Jesus had said, "behold I come quickly." By doing away with the literal return of Christ for His church, Augustine no doubt felt that he was helping God out. After all, if there was no literal return of Christ and no literal millennium, then Christ could be reigning over His spiritual kingdom up in heaven.

The literal promises given to Israel in the Old Testament could be spiritually applied to the church. However, applying those promises to the church came at a tremendously high cost. Attached to the promises given to Israel was also the Old Testament law. If the church is "spiritual Israel" then she must also keep the law"”if not for salvation, then at least for Christian living.


Proverbs gives us some very sobering advice about tampering with the Word of God: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar [Prov 30:6]." Concerning the book of Revelation, the Lord Jesus Himself said, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book [Rev 22:18-19]."

In all of these warnings, nothing is said about those who would distort God´s Word through allegorical interpretation. Augustine´s intentions may have been noble when he tried to help God out. He may have felt that amillennialism could help to explain Jesus´ statement in Revelation about His soon return, but the results of Augustine´s efforts were devastating.


----------



## Scot (Nov 26, 2004)

Take a look at what some of them consider "Good Solid Bible Teachers." 

John Hagee, Hal Lindsey...........

http://www.fresh-hope.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16612&start=0


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 27, 2004)

He keeps going;

You are not seeing the answwer from the word of God and at every occasion try and muddy the water wwith this retoric. There will be no sacrifices in the millennium because Jesus will be ruling and the nation of Israel will have repented and accepted their true Messiah.

Amos 9:14-15And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

As you can clearly see that here in Amos God specificallysays that He will return the captivity of Israel HIs people. And He says that He will give them the land. Now if Israel is the Church now as you say then where is the land that God is giving Israel or where was our captivity that He was bringing us back from.

No you can't come to that conclusion without changing the literal meaning here in Amos

In Obadiah 1:17 it saysBut upon mount Zion shall be deliverance, and there shall be holiness; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions

Again God says there will be deliverance for Israel and holiness shall be on Israel and the house of Jacob (Israel) will possess the land.

In Zephaniah 3:20 God again promises to turn back the captivity of Israel the nation.At that time will I bring you [again], even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the LORD.

The Church is not Israel


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2004)

I wonder if this person knows what the phrase "begging the question" means.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

Jeremiah 31:31-34


There is a difference between the Church and Isreal. 

Old Covenant Isreal included spiritual Isreal and physical nationalistic Isreal combined. The Church is only Spiritual Isreal.
The members of Nationalistic Isreal weren't necessarily regenerate. The Church is the Isreal of the New Covenant and is made up of only regenerate believers. 
Galatians 3:29
Romans 11:16-24
Ephesians 2:11-19
We were strangers excluded from the commonwealth of Isreal. v.12 but now we are no longer stangers and aliens but are now fellow citizens with the saints of God. v.19

We have the law written on our hearts instead of on stone. (Regeneration) We have been given heart of flesh not of stone. We are a Holy Nation! In this Nation, everyone Knows God because we are all regenerate. That is why we are not telling everyone in this Isreal to know God. He has made us know Himself. 

Just Read Jeremiah 31:31-34. It is the only place in the Old Testament where the term New Covenant is used. WE ARE IN IT. It has commenced. It will be consumated. 

I bet this guy doesn't believe we are in the New Covenant either. 

Anyways, I must sound crazy to you Presbyterian's. Hopefully not. I think I am being scriptural. As I asked earlier, Am I wacko or what. I truly don't have anyone to bounce these ideas off of. Most People don't care or want to talk about this stuff. 

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy
]

[Edited on 11-30-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Craig (Nov 30, 2004)

So, when you say "church" I assume you mean the church invisible?

The church is composed of unregenerate and regenerate people: We can't distinguish, and out not to try...but we recognize that God elects whoever He wants...same with old Israel. Visibly, you knew who was a Jew...you looked at their circumcision...but not all Israel was true Israel, does that mean they weren't called Israelites?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 30, 2004)

to Craig. In light of the doctrines of grace, if the New Testament church was only composed of elect persons, the olive tree would need no pruning.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

Craig, 

No, like I said, Isreal as an Old Covenant Nation was mainly just that. A Nation that God made a covenant with where the law was written on stone. Not necessarily upon their hearts. The Isreal of the New Covenant is totally spiritual Isreal. We have to be regenerate to be a part of it. If we are not regenerate we are just tares not wheat. We aren't grafted into the Olive tree. We are still aliens and strangers to God. We are strangers excluded from the commonwealth of Isreal. We wouldn't be considered children of Abraham. Just look at Ephesians 2:11-19. Romans 11:16-24, and Galatians 3:29.

Faith and regeneration are requirements before we are considered to be in Christ. Romans 11:20 Faith is important. Without Faith we are not justified and we are not a part of the Church. It is what we stand upon.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

Chris,

Your statement made absolutely no sense to me at all. Where does God prune unbelievers. In John 15 I think. He cut unbelieving nationalistic Isreal out and grafted us believers in. That is not pruning. That is cutting off and grafting in. He doesn't graft unbelieving gentiles into the tree. Where does it say that He does?
My main point is that the Church is Isreal. And it is made up of regenerate believers. That doesn't suggest that there are not imposters who have crept in unaware. These imposters just aren't truly a part of the Church. They are only tares.

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2004)

Randy,
How do you reconcile the warning passages in Hebrews if there are only believers in the church?

Also:

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Every branch in me.......

How can these branches be in Him if they are not in the church?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

Possible answer is.
Fair warnings to Hebrews to examine themselves whether they are in the faith because if I remember correctly he was persuaded of better things or that they were in the faith. Hebrew 6:9

Does that work?



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Fair warnings to Hebrews to examine themselves whether they are in the faith.



But these people are called "brethren". In fact, the writer calls them 'holy brethren'.

Heb 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;


The greek word hagios (holy) is used to emphasize consecration.......

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

That is my point. He believed they were.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2004)

Care to examine the John 15 passage that I supplied you with? How could they be 'in Christ' and then not in Christ?

Just pickin your brain Randy.......these passages were monumental to me.



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2004)

Scott,
I have just been listening to the Wilson/White debate, as I am sure you have listened to it. Correct me if I am wrong but was part of Wilson's argument that unbelievers were actually in the New Covenant since the author of Hebrews warns those in the NC and that those in the NC could actually be cut off (Rom 11 and 1 Cor. 10). 

Could you help me clarify your position against Wilson's? 

Thanks


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2004)

Yes. The Covenant of grace has believers and unbvelievers in it. 

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
Mat 13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Mat 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 30, 2004)

> _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



John 15:2 Every branch *in me* that beareth not fruit he taketh away..........


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 30, 2004)

Thanks,
more to think on.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

Okay, I am back. In John 15 it appears we are at the commencement of the New Covenant. Romans 11 would definitely apply here I believe. The Father is cutting off to graft in. He is also pronouncing the 11 clean even though one of them was pronounced unclean. Judas Iscariot was cut off and not allowed to enter into the New Covenant. I love John 15 also. I was regenerate during reading this book. When I read John 15:16 I just believed it. I didn't pray a prayer to receive Christ even though I did receive Him. I believed He was God eternal and that he died for my sin. It wasn't that complicated until I started getting involved with other Christians. 
John 15:6 is a general statement about everyone. 

By the way I am not a New Covenant Theologian. I don't think. Only because I really don't know what one is totally. I believe in the Covenant of Grace. Just a bit modified from the Presbyterian version. I believe in believers baptism. I don't care about the mode. As the children of Isreal were circumcised as babes, I believe a babe in Christ must be baptized as a sign of His covenant Relationship to God. I have never made this an issue though. In fact a couple of guys that have discipled and guys discipled by people I have discipled are Covenant Grads with Mdivs and a few others are Baptist. I don't make the Baptist happy because the mode doesn't bother me yet I don't make the Presbyterian's happy because I didn't baptize my boy's. In fact I could baptize a child if I was a minister. I wouldn't have a problem doing it. I wouldn't believe they were a part of the Church though. It would be more like a dedication for me. Kind of like Hannah and Samuel. I believe children die in an innocent grace that God has. He doesn't hold their sin against them till they are responsible for it. I am not smart enough to know when that is. I just believe God is merciful. Anyways that is where I am on this issue. What do you think? Okay I'm a nut. 

Randy


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 30, 2004)

Randy,

It doesn't sound like you answered Scott.

Maybe an easier question - for those who were cut off, were they ever "not cut off" or "in?"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

I don't believe your Matthew verses are only about the Church. It is about the world in general.(v.49) I also believe Christ has all dominion so if we speak of His Kingdom it includes the world and His Church. He has dominion over all for the Church. Ephesians 1:21,22

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 30, 2004)

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]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 1, 2004)

Randy,

Here's the thing with that - we are grafted into the SAME vine and the same tree trunk (Rom. 11). (Same Covenant). Question is, now, which one is He talking about? 

Multiple choice:

We are grafted into the:
a) Covenant of Grace b) Covenant of Grace c) Covenant of Grace d) Covenant of Grace 



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 1, 2004)

I'll say ..."C"!

Am I right?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 1, 2004)

Calvin on John 15:2:



> 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.



So while I will agree that Randy is wrong here (sorry, Randy  ) I would say (e) an administration of the covenant of grace, namely the new covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2004)

> _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?
> ...



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? 



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Scott,

I agree with you that the world is not "in me" even in the sense that Calvin states on this passage - as you can see from above, I agree with his interpretation rather than Matt's - but the Covenant of Works is still in place today. All who are not in Christ are under the Covenant of Works.

But that is even worse for Randy's case and better for your point, for Romans 5 makes clear that those who are under the Covenant of Works cannot be in covenant relationship with Christ; they are under Adam.

~Note to Fred,
Sorry I hit edit instead of quote on my response.....

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2004)

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."


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 1, 2004)

> _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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 1, 2004)

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?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 1, 2004)

> _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?



Men like Korah are in an outward administration of the Covenant of Grace (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New) and thus receive greater punishment - to whom much is given, much is expected (cp. Romans 3:1ff). But the unbeliever is "in Adam." There is no getting around that (Romans 5:12), and to be in Adam means to not be in Christ. Can a man be in Adam and in Christ at the same time? Romans 5 militates against this.

Also, the Catechism makes clear that the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect (WLC 31).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 1, 2004)

Well that was fun. I got left behind. I just popped on for a minute. The net isn't the kingdom is it Sott? It is the Reaping of all souls isn't it?
Anyways more later. I have to go to shool. I volunteer at my boy's school. Talk tonight. No one has still answered my question, who is in the covenant according to Romans 11, Galatians 3, or Ephesians 2?. I am still working on yours.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2004)

Randy,
The distinction needing to be made here is that of the visible and the invisible church. The covenant of redemption is made up of the elect only. The C.O.G has the visible church members in it; believers and unbelievers. Whenever the reference is made to the elect, it is to the elect; if to the brethren, it is then to the visible church. No one knows whom the elect (visible) are, so the practical application is always to the visible church.


I believe Romans 11 was addressed in the contrast to John 15, no?

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _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.



[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 1, 2004)

> _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.



Agreed. I thought that it was a matter of clarity/precision, but this is such a vital issue in today's scene that we must be precise.

To be clear: the CoW has not changed at all. What has changed is our ability to keep it. But God is still just in holding us to the full requirements of the CoW even though we cannot perform them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 1, 2004)

Okay, I am back. Let me ask you guys to back off a little bit. To much knowledge and I can't catch up. 

Scott I am not sure John 15 and Romans 11 are comparable. One is a vine and the other is an olive tree. One talks about grafting the other talks about cutting away. I do have a response for that but I want to work through this slowly. I have a lot to learn. Maybe they are the same.
I am at question overload with you guys. Can we start on a path that will let me discover what the heck is going on. My presuppositiion is that we have entered the New Covenant. It is fully commenced but not fully consumated. Does that sound okay to start with? I don't believe Dispensationalist believe that is true.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 1, 2004)

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.


And do you think the New Covenant has been fully inaugurated or not?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Scott,
> 
> What would you say if I cross referenced John 15:2 with 1 Corinthians 3:14-17?.
> ...



I don't see any connection Randy. Also, you should know that the "you" in this passage is plural, not singular in Greek. It has reference to the Church, not the individual Christian.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 2, 2004)

Thanks Fred. So it should say y'all are the temple. I thought It was a bit of a stretch also. 

Now tell me why John 15:2 can't be the Old Testament unregenerates being cut away as I believe that is what Romans 11 is about? 

Thanks Fred.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 6, 2004)

Scott, I do think John 15 and Romans 11 are related. Especially since they are both warnings to the church. I was told Fred Malone had a response in his book about John 15 so I am waiting to read that. I believe the Covenant of Grace's final destination is the New Covenant though. The others are only shadow administrations of the Covenant of Grace which finally culminate into the New Covenant, which we were told about long before in Abraham. I do know I am not a New Covenant Theologian now. I am still reading up on this. I do appreciate your help in asking me questions. The questions are helping me clarify things. I am reading your posts a little closer now.
Aint life good.


For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


----------

