Everlasting Covenant!?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
Genesis 17
7And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.

From my understanding, God is making an EVERLASTING covenant STARTING with Abraham and CONTINUING through-out his desendents.

Anybody with a different interpretation?

If not i will continue......

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Optimus]
 

Tertullian

Puritan Board Freshman
Dennis,

What a great way to think about this... I cannot wait to hear your next post it will probably challenge me to think harder through these issues of Covenant. I am not sure if you wanted any feed back from me, if not just feel free to ignore this post I will not be offended for I understand that you want to teach us about something you see in God's word and not get tangled up in stage one of your explanation-.

But in case you did want to entertain my comments now, later or never, my only question is which children of Abraham did God make the eternal Covenant with, the physical or the Spiritual? (See Gal 4:21-31)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:4eefea4fc7]
What a great way to think about this... I cannot wait to hear your next post it will probably challenge me to think harder through these issues of Covenant.
[/quote:4eefea4fc7]


Thanks for being so excited, im excited too.:D


[quote:4eefea4fc7]
I understand that you want to teach us about something you see in God's word
[/quote:4eefea4fc7]

Nah man, im not here as a teacher, but as a student who is eager to learn(check my mood). I just want some things cleared up to better my understanding.

[quote:4eefea4fc7]
which children of Abraham did God make the eternal Covenant with, the physical or the Spiritual?
[/quote:4eefea4fc7]

The answer is found in Genesis 17:7
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, since no one else has a different interpretation, i wi

8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

What I get from this passage is that they were promised to forever inherit the land of Canaan, which was a physical land, yet it was a shadow of what was to come (Heaven, which is everlasting)

Anybody with a different interpretation?
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:9c5eb3a16d]
Dispensationalists would say that "everlasting covenant" would be true in the context of the physical nation of Israel only.
[/quote:9c5eb3a16d]

yup, thats because they dont understand the continuity of scripture. and ignore the fact that you pointed out-

[quote:9c5eb3a16d]
"whether born in your house, or brought with your money from any foreigner"...this is an inclusion into the covenant even for those who are not of the flesh Israel
[/quote:9c5eb3a16d]

Unless im missing something, if i am i hope someone can point it out. Thats the whole point of this thread......

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Optimus]
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
[i:4dc1c32ae0]9And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.[/i:4dc1c32ae0]

This seems like God is not ASKING Abraham to keep the covenant, He's COMMANDING him to keep it. And for his children to keep it, their children to keep it, etc.....
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
i would continue, but

you guys can see my point already.

The question is:

What do credobaptist say about the EVERLASTING covenant? An EVERLASTING covenant that we are supposed to KEEP?
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:a71f97cfb5]
Covenant with, the physical or the Spiritual?
[/quote:a71f97cfb5]

Both.


Like the geneology of Christ.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
How is the "everlasting" aspect different for the Abrahamic covenant than it is for the Noaic covenant ? ? ?

If God will never flood the earth again, He will also keep His promise to the Elect and their children.



The Baptist will probably point to Esau at this point.
The error is in assuming God promises to unconditionally save ALL children of ALL elect for ALL time.

I believe the promise is sound. Just as there are still local floods that destroy entire cities, yet God has not broken His promise to Noah, so, in general, the promise of salvation is sure. He will save the children of believers. Believing the promise is keeping the Covenant.



[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]
 

Rich Barcellos

Puritan Board Freshman
Optimus asked:
[quote:3348eb92c9]
What do credobaptist say about the EVERLASTING covenant? An EVERLASTING covenant that we are supposed to KEEP?
[/quote:3348eb92c9]

The covenant of cirucmcision (Acts 7:8) was given to Abraham and his physical descendants in Genesis 17:13 and 19 and is called an everlasting covenant. In Numbers 25:10-13 Phinehas is given "My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covneant of an everlasting priesthood, ..." Numbers 19:10 says, "And the one who gathers the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening. It shall be a statue forever to the children of Israel ..." Numbers 18:8 says, "...Here, I Myself have also given you charge of My heave offerings, all the holy gifts of the children of Israel; I have given them as a portion to you and your sons, as an ordinance forever." Cf. vv. 11 and 19, which says, "All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer to the Lord, I have given to you and your sons and daughters with you as an ordinance forever; it is a covenant of salt forever before the Lord with you and your descendants with you." Several passages in the Pentateuch use similar language but add the qualifier "throughout your generations" or something similar to it (cf. Num. 10:8; Lev. 23:14, 21, 31, 41). Lev. 16:29, 31, 34 call the Day of Atonement "a statute forever" and "an everlasting statute for you..." All of these are postive laws added to the moral law for temporary redemptive-historical purposes for the physical descendants of Abraham. Positive laws function until they have served their purpose. The purpose of the covenant of circumcision has run its course and thus, "circumcision is nothing" (1 Cor. 7:19), as with the eternal ordinances of the Old Covenant. Physical circumcision for the descendants of Abraham marked them out as a peculiar people through whom the Messiah was to come, etc.

New Covenant cirucmcision is only of the heart, made without hands, performed by Christ, and is connected to the faith in the working of God of the ones circumcised.

The 2nd LCF, 28:1 says, "Baptism and the Lord's supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution ..." The covenant of circumcision was an ordinance of positive institution and its utility has ceased since the Messiah has come and Old Testament Israel has served its purpose.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
Rich:

In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus declared that he did not come not abrogate the Old Testament Law and Prophets, but to give them their full measure. John Murray wrote that Jesus' "fulfillment" of the law "refers to the function of validating and confirming the law and the prophets" (Principles of Conduct, p. 150).

Circumcision is fulfilled not abrogated. So are all the eternal priestly/ceremonial duties.

So if those are fulfilled in Christ, how is the promise attending them done away with, or rather, no longer valid in reference to the false dichotomy of the Physical vs. Spiritual seed of Christ ? ? ?

Explain your following statement from the scriptures please:


[quote:2a6d26dfcf]
All of these are postive laws added to the moral law for temporary redemptive-historical purposes for the physical descendants of Abraham. Positive laws function until they have served their purpose.[/quote:2a6d26dfcf]

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]
 

Rich Barcellos

Puritan Board Freshman
Wintermute asked:

[quote:c9b7b3a006]
Circumcision is fulfilled not abrogated. So are all the eternal priestly/ceremonial duties.
[/quote:c9b7b3a006]

Agreed. But abrogation and fulfillment have somewhat synonymous meanings in Reformed theology of the older sort.

John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries, Volume XIX (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, re. 1984), 246.
"The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection..."

Ursinus, Heidelberg Catechism, 492, 495, 496.
"The ordinary and correct answer to this question is, that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogated in as far as it relates to obedience; and that the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse [emphasis added], but not as it respects obedience.

The moral law has, as it respects one part [emphasis added], been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another [emphasis added], it has not.

But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned [emphasis added]. God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.

Turretin, Institutes, II:141-142.
"In order to apprehend properly the state of the question, we must ascertain in what sense the law may be said to have been abrogated and in what sense not." "But the question only concerns its directive use-whether we are now freed from the direction and observance of the law. This the adversaries maintain; we deny."

I think these divines would say that abrogation occurs because fulfilled. Various aspects of the Old Covenants law are abrogated becuse fulfilled in Christ.

I am leaving for a conference and will have to sign off until later.I'll try to take up this thread when I get back. It may not be until next week.
 

Saiph

Puritan Board Junior
I disagree with Calvin, Ursinus, And Turretin on this point then. (That is, if Calvin has not been quoted out of context.)

Christ fulfilled ALL of the Law.

The judicial, and moral still apply. The ceremonial we keep in Him, because he is the perfect sacrifice. There is no abbrogation where Christ has fulfilled.

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Wintermute]
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
rich,

thanks for your response. i was wondering if you considered the abrahamic covenant as law only. Im new at this, and i may be wrong, but i think there is a difference between the laws like

not eating pork

leviticus 5
2 " 'Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean-whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground-even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

and [b:e5f0a515e5]promises[/b:e5f0a515e5] made by God to be everlasting.

im open to your comments, as well as the rest of you guys.
 

luvroftheWord

Puritan Board Sophomore
The New Covenant will not be realized in its fullest until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and all Israel is saved. Paul says that this is the fulfillment of Isaiah 59:20-21 when he quotes this passage in Romans 11:26-27.

The New Covenant is both already and not yet. During the already, there will be a mixture of both elect and non-elect covenant members. Hence, Paul's warnings of being broken away from the olive tree.

In the New Covenant, the olive tree is not made of plastic. It is not like a fake Christmas tree that does not grow and has no need for branches to be taken away. The olive tree is a real tree that God really prunes. He cuts away the unbelieving branches. And until the New Covenant is realized in its fullness, this will always be the case.
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:9f035001ce]
In the New Covenant, the olive tree is not made of plastic. It is not like a fake Christmas tree that does not grow and has no need for branches to be taken away. The olive tree is a real tree that God really prunes. He cuts away the unbelieving branches. And until the New Covenant is realized in its fullness, this will always be the case.
[/quote:9f035001ce]

:goodpost:
 

Optimus

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:f1e513f02d][i:f1e513f02d]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:f1e513f02d]
rich,

thanks for your response. i was wondering if you considered the abrahamic covenant as law only. Im new at this, and i may be wrong, but i think there is a difference between the laws like

not eating pork

leviticus 5
2 " 'Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean-whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground-even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

and [b:f1e513f02d]promises[/b:f1e513f02d] made by God to be everlasting.

im open to your comments, as well as the rest of you guys. [/quote:f1e513f02d]

:puzzled:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top