Covenant of Works revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ben,

Ok, thanks for your thoughts. Your indictments have been read, dismissed for what they are, and I'll continue to speak with those who have something to offer.

Thanks for your time.
____

Robin,

Thank you for your post. I'll have to address it either later tonight or tomorrow. I'm off to play some racquetball and value my own opinions (pun on Ben). ;)

Dustin...
 
We interrupt this program for a moment of Scripture Meditation....

2 Peter 2

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet's madness.

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom,but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."

Selah

R.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]
 
Robin,

If all of that was meant to be an insinuation, well, you show the weakness of your position by such blatant and unwarranted ad hominem.

He who must scream the loudest from the platform has the weakest position.

Selah,

Dustin...
 
Dustin,

I mis-spoke (brain-glitch)....I meant to say "God coerced Adam to fail" as the question you're posing. (The former post was edited.)

If God coerced Adam to fail or a flaw/weakness was in Adam's nature so as to succumb...that is a problem.

There's no problem with "decree" because that is coincides with His sovreign rule.

Btw, this is a pointless argument if you're insisting to find Scripture that reveals more than it already says about creations' qualities. Holy Scripture clearly lays out: 1. Man was created in God's image (good-righteous); 2. God is NOT the Author of evil; yet man is culpable for his transgressions.

We are not privy to peek behind the curtain of God's inscrutable will.....Paul teaches it's not our business (Romans 9) nor are we capable of grasping reconciling these two (appropriate) tensions: God is Sovreign and not the Author of evil; pre-Fall Adam was splendid in nature an image-bearer of God that commits treason of which he is culpable.

Meanwhile, I'm afraid there is a problem with Vincent Cheung's "Systematic Theology" of which you may hold to. (Shall we call them VC's C?) Though he means well...he unfortunately uses the gender neutral NIV - which brings about weak exegesis; his take on anthropology is flawed - he asserts that the Imago Dei is only intellect (p. 118)(discounting morality as a Godly attribute man shares.) He is a self-appointed teacher asserting man does not have a God-given moral sense. Mr. Cheung is NOT helping! (Though, I'm sure he is a nice guy.)

It's not possible for any of us to assert we are "independent" of holding to Confessions of some sort...whatever they are: Geisler; Cheung; Berkhoff; Calvin...or even a self-appointed "non-denominational" (btw, there is no such animal)....all theological ideas line-up in some fashion and link to somebody's teaching. Bottom line: we are to agree with the Apostles teaching. Paul's systematic theology is what interests me. Paul didn't get hung-up on Adam's pre-Fall condition....Paul focused on Christ.

:2cents:

Robin

PS. I think your remarks to Ben, your overall tone& attitude towards Patrick and the others in this thread are arrogant; un-Christian and unworthy of someone claiming to bear an office of authority in the church. Rather, humility would first consider its own propensity to sin and reflect that the time will come to account for the manner in which we represent Christ. You have been offensive.

Matt. 18

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]
 
Dustin, your own arrogance is what I was hoping to point out... the others have repeatedly shown valid exegesis - their exegesis being backed by the exegesis of every thoughtful Christian in the history of the church... and still you persist.
Seeing that you present your self as an intellectual, I pointed out your own fallacies and internal contradictions that flow from the inferences and implications of your varying propositions... to which you were so unaware that when pointed out you simply acted confused. I offered ( since that is what you imply that I haven't done) a biblical fact pertaining to the God labeling Adam "very good"... to which you didn't (and cannot) respond.
So pardon me if I don't play patsy with someone who (obviously) thinks they've got an insight into Scripture not seen by anyone else.
So you can disregard my potency, but the bottom line is that I defended (in a very traditonal manner) an orthodox view of Adam... to which all you can do is hem and haw.
 
Ben,

No, you pointed out your system of thinking. You've done nothing worthwhile. You and Robin may deem that arrogant, but that is no matter. I merely point out what I see, just as you point out what you see. Funny though how I'm deemed a self proclaimed intellect (although I never touted myself as such) and arrogant, but all I've done is present my case in a Biblical and succinct manner. So why is it that I'm different than you Ben? Did I become immature and say things about Clintonesque questioning, etc? Did I take on an arrogant tone as you did in your first onslaught? No Ben, I did not.

Your screaming about arrogance and self proclaimed intellectual whatever is empty. Your post have been empty. Your claims of logical fallacies and contradictions are empty. You've presented nothing Ben. You really haven't. I know it all makes sense in your head, but that doesn't make it right. And just because you stand on the coat-tails of a man and say, "See, he was smart," that doesn't make you right.

I'm not surprised anymore when I speak with people like you and Robin. Neither of you have presented anything challenging at all. Patrick on the other hand has made me think. I'm hoping he jumps back in here.
____

Robin,

I'm not sure what to say to you anymore. Your dogma is obvious. Your faithfulness to confessions and systems is obvious. I guess that's just how it is. And just because I won't succumb to your way of thinking, you deem me unworthy, a false prophet, and so forth. How interesting Robin. On the way home tonight from playing racquetball, I told my friend, "You know what? I bet I get home and those 2 folks on the Puritan site have judged me and begun to lower themselves to name calling." Lo and behold, I was right. How did I know that? Because whenever I speak with people from the Covenants system (which I do here in San Antonio quite often) the majority of them are threatened and emotional when you won't become submissive. The ironic thing is that you are the one being arrogant and intellectually snobbish.

Blah! If you have something of substance to talk about, let's talk. Until then, I'll wait for Patrick.

Dustin...
 
In the meanwhile I am going to bring up something that I teased at on the board a few weeks ago. It is from the thread "Does a Denial of CoW necessitate a Denial of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?"

This is a summary and critique of Jim Jordan's view:

1. Adam was not in the garden to merit eternal life.
2. Adam was to exercise "lordship" over the garden and was a type of Christ.
3. In order to defeat the serpent, Adam would recognize his own weaknesses and in a "deep sleep" similar to the one where God took out his rib, he would rise anew in his kingly robes and defeat the Serpent. During this "deep sleep" Christ would come and defeat the serpent.
4. All throughout the Garden episode, Adam would recognize his own inabilities, thus precluding any merit.

However,

`1. Does this entail that Christ did not come to merit eternal life for us? Problematic
`4. Despite claims to the contrary, it would appear that Adam is indeed "acuiring" or "doing" something to attain eternal life. If (3) is true, then precisely what does Christ's death on the cross do for us? He really doesn't answer this question.

I will elaborate:

If the denial of CoW leads to the denial of Christ's righteousness, then Rome is correct.

The denial of CoW does lead to the denial of Christ's righteousness (hypothetically for hte moment)

Rome is correct.

This is what I am trying to find out.

I will continue the argument:

If Rome is correct, then we have to join in on the merit theology, which is what JOrdan is trying to avoid.

Rome is hypothetically correct if the denial of CoW entails the said mentioned.

Therefore,
Jordan, in trying to avoid merit theology, has ended up in Rome's camp.
Now, if any in the AAPC camp can show me that this is not logically necessary I would be interested to hear it. And I to appreciate many of the works that Jordan and Leithart put out.
 
Dustin,
Which confession do you hold to - the WCF or the 1689 Baptist one? Inquiring minds want to know.
 
ADMIN NOTE of WARNING -

MOST posters in this thread are out of line in your attitudes, ad homs, and inciteful language. This has not been a charitable debate.

Get to the point or this one is history!

Phillip :down:
 
Never under-estimate the power of Rome, Jacob! Under all the weasel-words, this "recasting" of the covenants is Roman by design.

For a worthwhile explanation, check-out Rev. Phillips' essay at www.alliancenet.org "Covenant Confusion"....

The upshot of this issue is redefinition of words. Apparently, the meaning of the word "covenant" has been revised to mean "relationship"....not a binding agreement with blessings and curses.

R.



[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]
 
Inquiring minds want to know....

Baker's Evangelical Theological Dictionary on "Covenant" says:

The New Testament word for covenant has usually been translated as covenant, but testimony and testament have also been used. This Greek word basically means to order or dispose for oneself or another. The though of the inequality of the parties is latent.

The generally accepted idea of binding or establishing a bond between two parties is supported by the use of the term berit [tyir.B]. When Abimelech and Isaac decided to settle their land dispute, they made a binding agreement, league, or covenant to live in peace. An oath confirmed it (Gen 26:26-31). Joshua and the Gibeonites bound themselves, by oath, to live in peace together (Joshua 9:15), although Yahweh commanded that Israel was not to bind themselves to the people living in the land of Canaan (Deut 7:2; Judges 2:2). Solomon and Hiram made a binding agreement to live and work in peace together (1 Kings 5:12). A friendship bond was sealed by oath between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 20:3,16-17). Marriage is a bond (covenant) for life.

The covenants referred to above were between two equal parties; this means that the covenant relationship was bilateral. The bond was sealed by both parties vowing, often by oath, that each, having equal privileges and responsibilities, would carry out their assigned roles.

Because a covenant confirmed between two human parties was bilateral, some scholars have concluded that the covenant Yahweh established with human beings is also bilateral. This is not the case.

God initiated, determined the elements, and confirmed his covenant with humanity. It is unilateral. Persons are recipients, not contributors; they are not expected to offer elements to the bond; they are called to accept it as offered, to keep it as demanded, and to receive the results that God, by oath, assures will not be withheld.

Scholars have learned by studying tablets found by archaeologists that legal treaties between kings (suzerains) and subjects (vassals) existed during the time of the biblical patriarchs, Moses, Joshua, the judges, and the first kings of Israel. These treaties were written on tablets for the purpose of establishing a continuing relationship as determined and authorized by the suzerain. Once written, the covenants were not to be altered or annulled although parts could be explicated or elaborated. Did biblical writers borrow the idea of the covenant and its integral elements from pagan sources when the Old Testament was written"”elements such as a self-presentation of the suzerain and his activities, including those done on behalf of the vassals, statements of intent, stipulations, and assurances of well-being if obedient and of curses if disobedient? The legal covenants included provisions for continuity, with emphasis on the suzerain's claim to vassals' children, and were confirmed by an oath or a special ratification ceremony, like the cutting in half of an ox or cow or the sharing of a meal as the conclusion of the act of covenanting.

These nonbiblical covenants were intended to serve a number of purposes, two of which are especially important to understand. The suzerain stated that as victor and lord over the vassals he had spared them in battle, delivered them from extenuating circumstances, and placed them in situations of life and well-being. This was an undeserved favor. The suzerain's covenant was also intended to serve an administrative function. It informed the vassals how the king would govern them and what they were to do in obedient response to him. These two purposes, the reminder of deliverance and the information on administration of affairs in daily life, appear in Yahweh God's covenanting with his people but in radically different ways.

Covenants, neither suzerain-vassal nor biblical, were not made (nor did they function) in a vacuum. Covenants presupposed a king, a domain, a way of life, people, and often mediating servants. The covenant was an important administrative means within a kingdom. Etc.

More on this description is at:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi

:book2:
 
Turmeric,

I don't "hold" to a confession. Nor do I need to hold to a confession in order to understand Scripture.
____

Pastorway,

I apologize for any part I played in an uncharitable debate. I was a little frustrated with regurgitation and blind dogma. I'll consider this one history.

In Him,

Dustin...
 
Ben,

While I firmly disagree with your position and I wish that we could have had a meaningful dialogue, I do want to apologize for any speech or actions that were not meant for our refinement, edification, or unity.

Maybe some day down the road we can pick this back up.

Dustin...
 
Dustin, I would be glad to interact more, but I am working this weekend. So I will get back to this thread later (if you all don't fry it first). In the mean time, I would suggest you peruse the Scripture references to the chapter in the WCF on "Free Will", and also the WSC question, "What is effectual calling?" with it's Scripture references. That's where I will be coming from. Hope you don't mind some homework ;)
 
Originally posted by Areopagus
Turmeric,

I don't "hold" to a confession. Nor do I need to hold to a confession in order to understand Scripture.
____

Pastorway,

I apologize for any part I played in an uncharitable debate. I was a little frustrated with regurgitation and blind dogma. I'll consider this one history.

In Him,

Dustin...
Click to expand...

Dustin,

I know you think you do not hold to a confession, but you do. The "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" psoition sounds very spiritual, but it is an empty position to hold.

Why? Because the instance you define who Christ is or what the Bible is, you have adopted a creed. True, it may not be writte down, but it is a creed nonetheless.

I think much of the concern in this thread has been trying to ferret out exactly what it is you do believe and where you are heading with your arguments.

It's a valid question to ask what creed you subscribe to, as it, among other things, creates a reference point from which a discussion can arise.

You've been very eloquent attacking the WCF and other Reformed creeds. What is your own? If you truly have none, then you are, at the very least, heterodox.
 
Kevin,

Herein again lies the problem. I'm being indicted with unnecessary and empty claims. I said that I do not "hold" to the BC, the WCF, or any other of the confessions being asked about. That's all that I said. I never said that I have no creed. Please, please quit these, quite frankly, ignorant indictments. I am not heterodox because I do not "hold" to one of your creeds.

Do I have a creed? Well of course.

More, I've never "attacked" the WCF, etc. Never. I've merely pointed out issues that I see. Is that called an attack? If so, you, Ben, Robin, Patrick, et al, have all attacked me by pointing out errors you see. We are all attacking each other. Uh oh. Do you see the fallacy in this line of thinking? Somehow I doubt that you do.

As I said, for whatever part I played in any part of an uncharitable debate, I apologize. At this point I'll bow out. It is now me against the system/creeds. I won't win because I don't use the language, submit to the system, or succumb to the consensus.

Praise the Lord.

Dustin...
 
I'm no moderator or administrator, but I'd swear that the membership requirements say:

[T]he Puritan Board has two Confessional Standards (that conflict at points): the Westminster Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Joinee's must embrace and appreciate the tenets set forth here in one of these documents. This in no way implies that Puritan Board and it's moderators see these confessions as either equal to the word of God; We do not! We see these confessions as documents that sufficiently comprise our beliefs. The adherence to either of these two documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" and the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging."
Click to expand...
 
As you've said, Matt:

Theological Traditionalism correctly demonstrates the Spirit´s work through the history of the church in and through gifted pastors and teachers. These pastors and teachers, through the history of the church have solidified orthodox doctrine in the creeds and confessions of the Church. Such orthodox confessions should be followed as they agree with the Scripture and with each other in their interpretation of the Scripture. These "œconsensus" interpretations are then found to be coherent in the subscriptionist Confessionalism of the orthodox creeds and confessions throughout the history of the church, and no Christian has the right to reject them as unorthodox to elevate a schismatic "œme and my bible" hermeneutic. To do so is to bring reproach against the Spirit´s work through history in His illumination of men, and to sin against God.

:amen:

Dustin, apology accepted....my heart hopes that you will note something important though...

A except from your churches' creed:

BRIDGEWAY BIBLE CHURCH'S STATEMENT OF FAITH

DOCTRINAL STATEMENT

The human phraseology employed in this statement is not inspired, but the truth set forth is held to be essential to established orthodox Christian belief and practice. No claim is made that it contains all the truth in the Bible, only that it covers traditionally fundamental matters of Christian faith.

1. THE SCRIPTURES INSPIRED

The Holy Scriptures, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, are fully and verbally inspired by God and are therefore infallible in the original writings and completely trustworthy in all areas in which they proclaim. Their central salvation message and essential teachings are clear and accessible to all who follow the standard and self-evident rules of literary interpretation. They are therefore the supreme, unmediated, and final authority of faith and practice for every believer (2 Tim. 3:15Å¡17; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; Heb. 4:12, II Peter 1:20,21; Mark 13:31; John 8:31,32; John 20:31; Acts 20:32).


Notice that it's design is the SAME as any and all historic confessions/creeds/catechisms - meaning there's a summary of Biblical doctrine with Scripture references. We all know that the creeds don't supersede Scripture -- UNLESS they ARE Scripture - which some are: "Jesus Christ is Lord" is a creed, btw.

Sensible, mature questions for anyone attending any church with their own "self made" confession - is WHO's study makes the statement of doctrine; WHERE did they get that understanding; HOW sound is it with Bible and HOW does it compare to the Church-catholic (small c) over time? Adherence to the creeds is hardly blind devotion -- it is worshipping God to struggle to think about Who He is....studying the "bible studies" of saints that have gone before is doing this -- much like you'd say studying your pastor's written sermons would be. (I've noticed that he's posted them in written form. Bravo!)

With all due respect, I don't know if you're the pastor at Bridgeway....it doesn't matter....but Biblical church government must be defended and upheld. That is why it's important to deal the question of "self-appointed" teachers.

Thank you, Matt, for such a thorough effort to clarify the issue.

R.
 
Originally posted by Areopagus
Kevin,

Herein again lies the problem. I'm being indicted with unnecessary and empty claims. I said that I do not "hold" to the BC, the WCF, or any other of the confessions being asked about. That's all that I said. I never said that I have no creed. Please, please quit these, quite frankly, ignorant indictments. I am not heterodox because I do not "hold" to one of your creeds.

Do I have a creed? Well of course.

More, I've never "attacked" the WCF, etc. Never. I've merely pointed out issues that I see. Is that called an attack? If so, you, Ben, Robin, Patrick, et al, have all attacked me by pointing out errors you see. We are all attacking each other. Uh oh. Do you see the fallacy in this line of thinking? Somehow I doubt that you do.

As I said, for whatever part I played in any part of an uncharitable debate, I apologize. At this point I'll bow out. It is now me against the system/creeds. I won't win because I don't use the language, submit to the system, or succumb to the consensus.

Praise the Lord.

Dustin...
Click to expand...

I don't recall attacking you. I don't recall making an ignorant indictment. I was seeking information. I was merely pointing out that your "me and the Bible" position is untennable. Whether or not you claim a particular creed or confession, you still have one. And whatever one it may be is guiding your doctrinal arguments. I was simply asking which one it was so I could discuss issues with you more cogently. I was pointing out that if you cannot affirm even the most basic Christian creeds--the Nicean, the Apostles', for instance--then you are, as I said before, heterodox.

Now I am not suggesting that you are. I'm just saying if you cannot affirm orthodox doctrine in even a minimalistic fashion, you are by definition heterodox...at least. It is easy to argue when all you do is ask questions and attack responses. While this is the heart of debate, you are debating somewhat unethically in that you refuse to present your own positions or name your own beliefs.

I see you are from a Bible Church. Does this mean you belong to the IFCA? If so that tells me a great deal. It tells me that you have high-regard for the Bible. It also tells me you are Calminian, dispensational, and probably baptistic. Knowing that, I can reason with you on your own turf. But you seem to prefer to want to keep your cards close to the vest and seem distraught when we call you on it. So if you want to debate, let's debate. Civilly. But if you just want lob grenades and take no intellectual risks with your own positions, at least be up front about it.
 
Dustin will not be returning to the board. He has decided to resign his membership.

In light of this, I am closing this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

kceaster
  • Locked
Old Covenant Revisited
3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
10K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
Covenant of Works
Replies
1
Views
2K
Davidius
Davidius
Ask Mr. Religion
  • Locked
Covenant of Works or Covenant of Creation?
Replies
2
Views
3K
Scott1
Scott1
C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
The Covenant of Works
Replies
0
Views
2K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
Doulos McKenzie
  • Locked
The Mosaic Covenant a Covenant of Works?
Replies
8
Views
3K
arapahoepark
arapahoepark
Back
Top