steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
Read something in Jude I hadn't noticed before and it's opened up a huge can of worms in my investigation of covenant theology.
This reading, though there has been some dispute historically, is almost certainly original.
To me, this passage has huge implications for what it means to deal with God through covenant. New Covenant types, like me, tend to view salvation in Jesus to be a sure thing, the fullness of covenantal promises laid on the one who believes by faith. But here's a verse that suggests that one can be saved by Jesus (dare I say, "externally in covenant with him"), but not be elect and up end up being destroyed by him. You can come within the fold of Christ and his covenant of grace, yet be lost. I hadn't thought of it before, that Jesus was dealing with Israel. This has uncovered something I may have subconsciously presupposed: Yahweh deals with his people one way, but Jesus deals with his people another. But this verse is so stark and plain: Jesus is Yahweh. There is no separation in the Godhead, therefore no differences in his operation.
This no doubt obliterates dispensationalism ... does it also obliterate the Reformed Baptist view of what it means to covenant with Christ?
help!
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
This reading, though there has been some dispute historically, is almost certainly original.
To me, this passage has huge implications for what it means to deal with God through covenant. New Covenant types, like me, tend to view salvation in Jesus to be a sure thing, the fullness of covenantal promises laid on the one who believes by faith. But here's a verse that suggests that one can be saved by Jesus (dare I say, "externally in covenant with him"), but not be elect and up end up being destroyed by him. You can come within the fold of Christ and his covenant of grace, yet be lost. I hadn't thought of it before, that Jesus was dealing with Israel. This has uncovered something I may have subconsciously presupposed: Yahweh deals with his people one way, but Jesus deals with his people another. But this verse is so stark and plain: Jesus is Yahweh. There is no separation in the Godhead, therefore no differences in his operation.
This no doubt obliterates dispensationalism ... does it also obliterate the Reformed Baptist view of what it means to covenant with Christ?
help!