My Position on Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hebrews 8:10-12 says all in the covenant will know the Lord, that is all in the covenant have eternal life John 17:3. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses.

VanVos
 
Originally posted by VanVos
Hebrews 8:10-12 says all in the covenant will know the Lord, that is all in the covenant have eternal life John 17:3. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses.

VanVos

The problem is that the assertion that the fundamental nature of the covenant has changed when that isn't suggested in Hebrews 8. What has changed is that we have greater revelation of who God is and what he has done for us in Christ. The covenant has always been admiinistered through families. How does the greater revelation of God to His people change that structure? The formula has always been "I will be your God and you will be my people." When Gentiles are engrafted, they become part of this historical adminsitration of the same covenant. What's "new" about the covenant is not the covenant itself, but the revelation of what God is doing in it. It is renewed and clarified, as every covenant administration has done when made. But I'll refer you to Vos on that point :)

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by VanVos
Hebrews 8:10-12 says all in the covenant will know the Lord, that is all in the covenant have eternal life John 17:3. I'm sure your aware of credobaptist interpretation of these verses.

VanVos

The problem is that the assertion that the fundamental nature of the covenant has changed when that isn't suggested in Hebrews 8. What has changed is that we have greater revelation of who God is and what he has done for us in Christ. The covenant has always been admiinistered through families. How does the greater revelation of God to His people change that structure? The formula has always been "I will be your God and you will be my people." When Gentiles are engrafted, they become part of this historical adminsitration of the same covenant. What's "new" about the covenant is not the covenant itself, but the revelation of what God is doing in it. It is renewed and clarified, as every covenant administration has done when made. But I'll refer you to Vos on that point :)

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]

Thanks for the Vos reference :)

In regards to the newness of the New Covenant in Hebrews 8. I believe the New Covenant is not only different in administration but also different in kind. Heb 8:9 says that it will not be like the covenant that God made in the wilderness (the Siniatic Covenant):

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.


I believe the Siniatic Covenant was a conditonal covenant, but the New Covenant is unconditional. I think the antithetical nature of these two Covenants is seen through out the New Testament.

The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

These women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are slaves ... but the Jerusalem above is free (Galatians 4:24, 26)

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13)

VanVos
 
For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13)

Context, context, context. What's the very next verse - describing that which is obsolete and ready to pass away (Ch 9. v. 1)?:

Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.

What is passing away, then? The entire covenant? No, its administration. The New Covenant has a more glorious administration, where the people are all priests of God and can now know him in a personal, relational way through Christ, the better Mediator (being not a man).

Context.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13)

Context, context, context. What's the very next verse - describing that which is obsolete and ready to pass away (Ch 9. v. 1)?:

Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.

What is passing away, then? The entire covenant? No, its administration. The New Covenant has a more glorious administration, where the people are all priests of God and can now know him in a personal, relational way through Christ, the better Mediator (being not a man).

Context.

Sure we have to keep it in context. And I believe I am. One of the differences between the two covenants is the first is violable the second is not.

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.

And yes it's true that Hebrews 9 addresses the ordinances of the Siniatic Covenant. But that still change the fact that the Covenant as whole was ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13, Gal 3:19.

VanVos
 
Another thing you may wish to consider is the context of those passages in Gal. and Hebrews. Both are addressing jewish misunderstandings of the Mosaic covenant. They thought the Mosaic covenant an end in itself. In these passages, the author is clearly teaching that is not the case but that the Mosaic administration was teaching us the nature of the relationship in the one covenant of grace.
When the Messiah was revealed, it didn't change the structure of the family within the covenant, because that wasn't established in Moses, but in Abraham, Noah, and Adam before. Even if you would argue a seperate distinct covenant with Moses that is completely irradicated, it would not change the nature of the historical administration established long before the giving of the law, with Abraham.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Another thing you may wish to consider is the context of those passages in Gal. and Hebrews. Both are addressing jewish misunderstandings of the Mosaic covenant. They thought the Mosaic covenant an end in itself. In these passages, the author is clearly teaching that is not the case but that the Mosaic administration was teaching us the nature of the relationship in the one covenant of grace.
When the Messiah was revealed, it didn't change the structure of the family within the covenant, because that wasn't established in Moses, but in Abraham, Noah, and Adam before. Even if you would argue a seperate distinct covenant with Moses that is completely irradicated, it would not change the nature of the historical administration established long before the giving of the law, with Abraham.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by puritansailor]

Here's an article that best explains my position on the Mosaic Law
http://www.upper-register.com/sermons/gal3_sermon.html

I'm not denying that covenant of Grace didn't begin with Adam, I affirmed this in my opening post. But I do believe, as I've explained in previous posts, that certain administration of the Covenant of Grace have been fulfilled with coming of the Messiah and the establishing of the New Covenant.

Thanks again for your thoughts

VanVos
 
OK.

How does this understanding remove the family structure in the administration of the covenant? The author is a paedo-baptist as well as the other authors on that site. He certainly doesn't think that the typical fulfillment of the Mosaic law does away with the family structure in the covenant. What dots are you connecting to come to that conclusion?
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
OK.

How does this understanding remove the family structure in the administration of the covenant? The author is a paedo-baptist as well as the other authors on that site. He certainly doesn't think that the typical fulfillment of the Mosaic law does away with the family structure in the covenant. What dots are you connecting to come to that conclusion?

I think you misunderstand, I was only presenting my position on the Siniatic Covenant, and how it has passed away. I would argue we no longer have non-elect person in the covenant community because the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants are fulfilled by Christ, and the NC only includes the elect.

VanVos
 
I would argue we no longer have non-elect person in the covenant community because the Adamic and Abrahamic covenants are fulfilled by Christ, and the NC only includes the elect.

Uhhh, isn't the "covenant community" in the New Covenant the Church? Are you saying we can (or even worse, should) discern the hearts of men as to whether or not they are elect? You better not be found bringing your kids to Church, or you will be found inconsistent; that is, unless you can conclusively prove to me that the "covenant community" is something other than the visible Church, at least from our point of view.

Isn't the Church today the same Church of Old? I believe Romans 11 (and numerous other passages, cf. Gal 3:28; Eph 2:16; 4:4; Col 3:11; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 10:12) show this to be the case. Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed (1 Cor 10:1-5).

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "œBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

We are the same olive tree, with the same covenantal obligations and stipulations.

The CoG has always been unconditional and conditional - It is conditional because we must have saving faith; Unconditional because God provides this faith to the elect.

The CoG has also always been unbreakable, because God is faithful to His promises and will not fail us - HOWEVER, as Scripture makes abundantly clear, men CAN and in fact DO break covenant with God. This happened in the OC administration and it can happen in the NC administration.

It is bad exegesis to read Heb 8 as saying "we can no longer break covenant with God," when the emphasis is on the fact that God renewed the covenant and made it more glorious despite the fact that the Jews broke their covenant with Him. Nothing changed in the NC, as Rom 11:22 shows us so very clearly. God's grace is made more abundant when we see how He will not neglect to be faithful to His people, covenantally, even though we are always failing Him.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that there are not only NC promises and spiritual blessings, but curses as well (1 Cor 11:27) and that we, in fact can still be cut off from the covenant (Matt 22:11-14; Jn 15:6; Heb 2:1-4; 4:1-2; 5:11 - 6:8; 10:26-31; Jas 1:24; 2 Pet 1:9-11; 2:20-22; Jude 17-21).

In fact, the most compelling passage in the NT for this is found in Hebrews 10:26-31, where we basically find the concept, "So you thought breaking covenant with God was bad under the Old Covenant? Well, it is ten times worse if you break the New Covenant!"

Heb 10:26  For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "œVengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "œThe Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

We have a couple options when we take all of these passages into consideration. Only one of them is acceptable.

1. We become Arminians and believe (like Baptists) that the NC is salvation only and that these people are losing their salvation.
2. We say the NC is salvation only, but that these passages are hypothetical or talking about backsliding (i.e. we become horrible exegetes and extremely inconsistent).
3. We understand that you can be legally bound to a covenant and not receive its blessings and benefits; We are able to break our end of the covenant agreement, and many often do.

[Edited on 3-31-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Uhhh, isn't the "covenant community" in the New Covenant the Church? Are you saying we can (or even worse, should) discern the hearts of men as to whether or not they are elect? You better not be found bringing your kids to Church, or you will be found inconsistent; that is, unless you can conclusively prove to me that the "covenant community" is something other than the visible Church, at least from our point of view.

First Let define covenant community: Those in the Covenant.
Second, no we can not completely discern the hearts of man we are to go by their profession. Just because someone goes through the waters of baptism doesn't mean they're in the New Covenant.

Isn't the Church today the same Church of Old? I believe Romans 11 (and numerous other passages, cf. Gal 3:28; Eph 2:16; 4:4; Col 3:11; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 10:12) show this to be the case. Spiritually speaking, nothing has changed (1 Cor 10:1-5).

Yes Israel was the church under age. Still don't see how that effects my postion on the nature of the New Covenant.

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "œBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

I explained my interpretation of these verses in previous post. Again I do not see a Covenant being addressed in this passage.


The CoG has also always been unbreakable, because God is faithful to His promises and will not fail us - HOWEVER, as Scripture makes abundantly clear, men CAN and in fact DO break covenant with God. This happened in the OC administration and it can happen in the NC administration
Really show me where it talks about the New Covenant that is in Christ's blood been broken.

It is bad exegesis to read Heb 8 as saying "we can no longer break covenant with God," when the emphasis is on the fact that God renewed the covenant and made it more glorious despite the fact that the Jews broke their covenant with Him. Nothing changed in the NC, as Rom 11:22 shows us so very clearly. God's grace is made more abundant when we see how He will not neglect to be faithful to His people, covenantally, even though we are always failing Him.

Bad exegesis? Nothing changed in the NC? how so? when the New Covenant is said to be a better covenant based on better promises with a new Mediator.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that there are not only NC promises and spiritual blessings, but curses as well (1 Cor 11:27) and that we, in fact can still be cut off from the covenant (Matt 22:11-14; Jn 15:6; Heb 2:1-4; 4:1-2; 5:11 - 6:8; 10:26-31; Jas 1:24; 2 Pet 1:9-11; 2:20-22; Jude 17-21).

Again where in these passages does it say a covenant is broken...show me? Most of these verses speak of judgment on those who reject Chirst.

In fact, the most compelling passage in the NT for this is found in Hebrews 10:26-31, where we basically find the concept, "So you thought breaking covenant with God was bad under the Old Covenant? Well, it is ten times worse if you break the New Covenant!"

Heb 10:26  For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, "œVengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "œThe Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

No ten times worst if you reject Christ. The blood of the Covenant which he was sanctified is reference to Chirst not to the individual who rejects Christ.

We have a couple options when we take all of these passages into consideration. Only one of them is acceptable.

1. We become Arminians and believe (like Baptists) that the NC is salvation only and that these people are losing their salvation.
2. We say the NC is salvation only, but that these passages are hypothetical or talking about backsliding (i.e. we become horrible exegetes and extremely inconsistent).
3. We understand that you can be legally bound to a covenant and not receive its blessings and benefits; We are able to break our end of the covenant agreement, and many often do.

Or Option 4. We have have the invisible and visible church, and some in the visible church are false professers.

Actually I do believe we agree on a lot. The only really major difference is that some passages you see a reference to a Covenant where as I do not. Thanks for your thoughts.

VanVos



[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos]
 
Law & Gospel - Works & Grace

In Redemptive history, the same Gospel covenant that God made with Adam (Gen. 3:15) was renewed with Abraham. The promise was re-stated, "I will be your God, and to your children." The sign in Genesis 15 was the cutting of animals-- the stipulation remained faith. For this reason Scripture says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Gen. 15.6).

In Gen. 17.10-14, circumcision became the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace. The Lord calls the sign of circumcision "My covenant."

The covenant of works did not disappear in history. It is repeated throughout the Scriptures each time the Law is read and God demands perfect righteousness from sinners. EX: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" (Gal 3:10). When Jesus said to the rich young ruler, "do this and live" (Luke 10.28) he was repeating the covenant of works.

Plus, the covenant of grace is repeated throughout the history of redemption. When God says, "I will be your God, you will be my people" he repeats the promise he made to Adam. The Gospel promise is repeated to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Moses and finally fulfilled in Christ and is then repeated to us through the Apostles (Acts 2:39.)

These two covenants unify all of Scripture.

R.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Again, as others have suggested, I don't think you understand the idea of a covenant (as in the CoW). Keep studying. Grace and peace.

My Dear Gabriel,

If you get time, do check-out Lee Irons's site:

http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/two_adams.html

This article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.

I stand with VanVos, Btw. Don't underestimate the value of his recommendation, OK?

In edification,

r.
 
My Dear Gabriel,

If you get time, do check-out Lee Irons's site:

http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/two_adams.html

This article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.

That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos]
 
Originally posted by Areopagus
VanVos,

Great posts. Very well articulated. Your swimming upstream. ;) Keep swimming.

Dustin...

Thanks...will do...although some might say it would be easier to use the bridge:lol:
 
[quoteThis article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.[/quote]

That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos] [/quote]

Reverend VanVos.....do you give sermons from Kline's point of view? In a Assembly of God?

Just wondering....

Robin
 
Originally posted by Robin
[quoteThis article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.

That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos] [/quote]

Reverend VanVos.....do you give sermons from Kline's point of view? In a Assembly of God?

Just wondering....

Robin [/quote]

I do indeed. I'm sure my dispensational brothers and sisters will not be too pleased. But really I just focus on the exegesis of scripture and pray that God will use it to bring people into a deeper understanding of His truth.

VanVos
 
Originally posted by VanVos
Originally posted by Robin
[quoteThis article by Meredith Kline is striking and provides a rich drink of understanding to what "covenant" really means in God's economy.

That's an awesome article. I believe it's an excerpt from Kline's book Prologue to the Kingdom Gen 1-11, which can be read online at twoagrepress.org. I recommend it to one and all.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-1-2005 by VanVos]

Reverend VanVos.....do you give sermons from Kline's point of view? In a Assembly of God?

Just wondering....

Robin [/quote]

I do indeed. I'm sure my dispensational brothers and sisters will not be too pleased. But really I just focus on the exegesis of scripture and pray that God will use it to bring people into a deeper understanding of His truth.

VanVos [/quote]

WOW! GOooooo, VanVos! :up:

R.

[Edited on 4-2-2005 by Robin]
 
Jonathon,
From one A/G guy to another (insert secret handshake here :lol: ), you rock! There are more of us than many think.

This is an excellent thread. Keep it up.

Lawrence
 
Originally posted by LawrenceU
Jonathon,
From one A/G guy to another (insert secret handshake here :lol: ), you rock! There are more of us than many think.

This is an excellent thread. Keep it up.

Lawrence

Thanks man...it's good to know that I'm not alone.

Blessings Jonathan
 
Patrick,
It is small, but growing number. There are things happening in both directions in the A/G. More than I can go into here and right now. Nonetheless, it is a shaking time in many ways.
 
That is very good to hear. They have a special place in my heart because I was born and raised there and still have some family and friends there. I pray the Holy Spirit brings a true revival to them.
 
Originally posted by Goodison park
Sounds like this VanVos knows a thing or two. What an array of complimants.
:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: Hurray!!!

VanVos

P.S. Don't I know you from somewhere? Haven't we met before?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top