# CT Terminology



## HisRobes4Mine (Apr 4, 2018)

How would you help someone to understand the terms Covenant of Works & Covenant of Grace are helpful ways to understand the Bible when they ask “why can we just not use the terms Paul does? ‘Under Law’ & ‘Under Grace’”?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 5, 2018)

Good and fair question; that's where I would start. Well, the word Trinity isn't in the Bible, but most people find it to be a helpful way to summarize many important truths that the Bible teaches. Similar thing here. Just helpful terms that describe biblical truths. Besides, "under Law" needs more specificity. Law can mean a dozen different things in Scripture; and it can actually lead to more confusion. Under Law _in what sense_? If you mean as a rule of life, then believers ARE actually under the Law. If you mean as a Covenant of Works, believers are NOT under the Law. But by "under Law" what was Paul actually referring to? To the garden or to Mt. Sinai? Or just to the Moral Law proper? Do all believers automatically take it in the same way? Is there not some clarity needed? The terms just serve to give clarity to what is actually being talked about, in order to eliminate as much confusion as possible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 5, 2018)

People have this tendency: a man assumes that if something he reads "makes sense" to him, and he is comfortable with that meaning, it "fits" with other ideas he has in his head relating to this topic, then he's_ got it._ He knows the truth.

It may even shock him that someone else could read the same words he read, and not agree with him. As a matter of fact, refusing to change one's mind to see it as he does constitutes a moral failure in his eyes.

It just may be that the words are open to various interpretations. Not that the original author had multiple meanings in mind when he wrote them, but everyone on all sides wants to claim the original author for themselves. This is what happens to documents of major significance. There is often current "value" to being associated with honorees of the past (until they pass out of favor).

When somebody says, "I just believe the Bible," they are usually saying also, "You can't be believing the Bible, because if you were you'd agree with me. Why? Because I believe the Bible." Whatever is in his head must be what the Bible teaches, because he believes the Bible (fallacy of affirming the consequent).

This is why extra-biblical language is a consequent necessity. Because, without it we wouldn't have the tools, the_ terms,_ to come to agreement about the import of Scripture's words--or at least to arbitrate the public distinction between those who hold to one approved sense of the words, and those who deny that sense. This is the function of creeds. Having a creed inevitably means eventual dissents over the meaning of those words too, but this is not work we can evade.

"All heretics quote Scripture." At its best, the aim of creedal language is to express the real, original meaning of the first author with consent. It is also true, that sometimes powers-that-be have dictated "the official sense" of the words, that they know is not what was meant originally. That is reprehensible when such meaning is imposed on people who know better, or when the shift is subtle. It's not so bad when it is an open agreement to adopt a new sense. Think about the words, "he descended into hell." It has had four meanings in church history.

But to return to the current question. Jon has well expressed the variable senses those biblical words can have, both at different places in the Bible, and in theological discourse. One is free to use only "the Bible-words" if he so desires, but engaging broadly in honest communication will require him to use explanatory terms to convey his meaning, and to receive the meaning of others. That is the ONLY way to be confident of a common, agreed-upon sense for the original words.

There is an unfortunate arrogance to_ insisting_ on the alleged "superiority" of that exclusive attachment to "biblical terms." It gets back to the thought I expressed at the top: that_ if you were only truly submissive as he is to the Bible's own terms, you'd agree with him._ Either that, or he insists that the ambiguity of variable meanings for the biblical terms is an indication that all of them are legitimate, and thus you cannot convince him he is wrong; if he's wrong then you too are wrong.

Both tactics are used by people introducing heterodox notions. On one hand, the new doctrine is really (supposedly) the original doctrine, so let's get back to the Bible (or the official view, etc.). On the other hand, the new doctrine is just as legitimate (superior) as your interpretation, so you have to let him teach as he pleases; otherwise you are illegitimately excluding his "humble" reliance on the strict terms of Scripture (and you probably secretly hate the Bible).

Reactions: Like 1


----------

