C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Web,
[quote:8a06cbdd65]The very long thesis you posted for me to read, was that your own work? I ask because I found the exact same piece written here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonSummaryWitsiusEconomy.htm
#Book%202%20""%20Explaining%20the%20Covenant%20of%20Redemption [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Yes, it is my work. It is an expanded summary of Witsius"(tm) first and second book.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]As for the content: Well, it's precisely what I've been trying to understand, Web. That entire piece was built upon a presupposition that says God must have an overall covenant with the Son (yet, it is nowhere spoken of in Scripture - even piece milled)[/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Your are ignoring the exegetical facts as a systematic whole. Actually, you use different language and acquiese to it when you talk about Predestination. Historically, can you tell me who thought the Covenant of Redemption was important and who combined it into one Covenant of Grace?
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Then, after assuming this eternal covenant, and building off of the clear truth that God is a covenant making God, one begins to place the labels and go from there.[/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Everyone uses labels. If you believe in the Trinity, you use labels. Labels are good. Labels tells us and others where we are at and what we believe in systematic theology. Why do you hate labels?
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Next, there is an assumed CoW, CoG, and so forth. Covenant, covenant, covenant. Odd! Why not just say that God works in decrees, and that those decrees will be carried through because He is a decree making God? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Because God is a covenant making God and He uses the idea of covenant in every relationship he has, including creation.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]At least then we could see clearly from Scripture the truth in this. We could then say, "Ah yes, and because God is a decree making God, within those decrees are ministries/programs called *covenants* whereby He makes a pact, a formal agreement with His creation, and again, carries that promise forth with full assurance, because, after all, He's a God who decrees"? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
This is really where you are getting befuddled. Its not really a matter of systematic, for you, it is a matter of hermeneutics "" the basics of hermeneutics. Find me one statement, as I have asked you three times, for a comprehensive verse on the Trinity. Or if you would like "" where Jesus says of Himself "œI am God." Not where you would have to deduce these things, but that "" to use your language "" we could "œsee clearly from Scripture". (i.e. you mean "" verbatim). If you do not mean verbatim, you should have no problems with labels.
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Yes, God has made a covenant of grace, clearly. The New Covenant confirms this. And yes, I believe that this covenant of grace was decreed by God in eternity past, in Himself. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You have changed your position from your first post which said God did not do this. I am glad now you think so. You may find this very helpful "" it is a paper I wrote on Turretin"(tm)s view of the Covenant of Grace "" whereby he talks about how the Covenant of Grace is divided into two NECESSARY sections dealing with Eternity past and the era of time. To befuddle these is to remain confused in CT.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that this grace has been since the moment of creation, because we cannot sever one part of Gods eternal plan from another, yes? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Depends on what you mean. All our knowledge of God is accommodated, and we must think in parts. Our knowledge of God is essential in parts when we speak about God"(tm)s holiness, righteousness, justice, etc. God is not compartmentalized, but we think that way to understand the progression of Redemptive history. When I talk about God"(tm)s plan, there are stages to it. Otherwise we would not be able to differentiate the progression of the plan that God makes radically clear throughout Scripture.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that the Law was a tutor unto Christ, and that it still plays an intricate part in the life of the believer because it illustrates with brutal clarity of our continual inability. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Agreed. I like "œbrutal clarity" too.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that God initiated covenants throughout the course of history. And on it goes. Were you to discard the assumed label of the eternal CoR, which is Gods grace in election according to His own good pleasure, and then admit that the CoW is yet another label placed on something that God decreed, and then allowed, we might get somewhere. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Isn"(tm)t this exact what has been said of the Covenant of Redemption already? Election/Predestination through and In Christ is exactly what the Suffereing Servant comes to accomplish according to the will of the Father. That IS the Covenant of Redemption. You seem simply not to like the division but have not offered a reason why except that "œit is not clear" to you in Scripture because Scripture does not use the term. Again, that goes back to accepting "œrinity" or "œOriginal Sin."
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Again, unless I am just completely ignorant and cannot see this, I maintain my position. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
I think you have not really wrestled with the whole idea of Covenant in general. Its bigger than you are allowing.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]So, am I to understand that the clear implication that your being irked by men in "pastoral positions teaching the flock of God bad theology" isn't a reference to my being a teacher? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
No, definitely a reference. I am saying that I am saddened by the state of the church. You SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING THESE THINGS! They should have ALREADY been considered before you stepped into a pastoral position. You should WELL VERSED in Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, Apologetics, etc, BEFORE getting into the pulpit or a teaching position. That means when I ask you, as a PASTOR, have you read through the Institutes, or Witsius, or Turretin, or Hodge, you SHOULD SAY "" OF COURSE I HAVE, FOR I WOULD NOT BE IN A PASTORAL POSITION, LEADING THE FLOCK WITHOUT STUDYING FIRST!!
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Am I also to believe that this isn't ad hominem? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Its ad hominem with a twist. If you have time, you would understand what I mean by reading this paper (yes, I know, so many papers so little time):
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/McMahonTheologicalTraditionalism.htm
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Further, am I to understand that when you speak of this bad theology "that has emerged out of thet 20-21st century revivalistic church movement" that you are not implying that I am not a part of that horrific movement, just because I do not agree with what you cannot prove? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Read the above paper I quoted. As for the "œprove point" well, that assumption on your part. You yourself said you were thinking through this. Both Craig and I offered a number of Scriptural idea to think about. Just the nature of Christ"(tm)s office of Prophet, Priest and King prove our point.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Am I to believe that this wasn't ad hominem? And lastly, although we could continue, am I to understand that when you say "they are throwing off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism in order to go with new and novel doctrines of which they are ignorant they are new and novel", that you aren't implying that I fall into that category? Am I to understand that this wasn't ad hominem? And all of this in the very same opening paragraph where you say you do not "ad in ad hominems." [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
I add them in to spark a little stir, not because they prove a theological point (although sometimes they do).
[quote:8a06cbdd65]By the way, it is also interesting that you clearly identify your assumption in the statement that to not adhere to Covenentalism is to throw "off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism." [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
That is correct.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Where, might I ask, besides in the 2 or 3 Scriptures that keep being mentioned, is this doctrine so clearly taught? It isn't. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
If that is attitude, then we have nothing to discuss. If you would rather stick with what you have, fine with me. I have no burden to prove. You need to disprove (after reading) historical theology. Now that would be a task.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]In fact, you have yet to show me that there was an eternal pact or formal agreement made between the Father and the Son, whereby, there was a correspondence that held contingencies. It is clear to me that in eternity past God decreed all that was to happen. He predestined Christ to be the Redeemer. He predestined the Spirit to be the worker/power. He had ministries of covenants throughout, that He decreed. Yet in all of this I see no CoR, CoW, CoG, as Covenentalism defines it. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You are not really listening to what we are posting, or the Holy Spirit is not illuminating it to you. You should at least be able to reiterate what Reformed Theology teaches before you dismiss it. Remember, church history agrees with Reformed Theology, not deviations from it unless we get back to "œother theologies".
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Hosea 6:7. At first glance I was impressed with the forthwright appearance of this text. However, after reading it over and over, in context; after seeking out the great minds before us; and after seeking wise counsel, it seems that your presupposition has swayed your view of this text. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Not really. What "œgreat minds" do you mean? Calvin, Turretin, Witsius, Edwards? You ONLY have one of two options with the text. 1) Adam was in a covenant of works with God "" and the Israelites broke their covenant as Adam broke his. Or, the Israelites broke a covenant like men broke a covenant "" that depends on how you translate the Hebrew. If you choose the former, it theologically sensible. If you choose the latter you are going to have to do some VERY fancy exegetical footwork to come up with a covenant in the Scriptures that god made apart from Israel that He made "œwith men". This is impossible. Secondly, as I already pointed out, Christ was the second Adam "" or second man, if you prefer. IF Christ is in any kind of relationship with God to fulfill the law (the Covenant of works), then being the second Adam, you would have to rewrite theology to come up with a new way of dealing with the first Adam. Adam was not in a Covenant of Grace. The stipulations were based on work. Reward is based on work. But he transgressed the covenant.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]That is my opinion, not an indictment. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
And THAT, my friend, is why I am being difficult on you. We are not about opinions, we are about Confessional Subscriptionism to historical theology that has been taught since God made covenants with men. And THAT is our great difference.
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Yes, Israel was IN covenant with God. Yes, Adam was IN covenant with God. Yes, they both transgressed that covenant. But just what was the covenant, Web? Are we to let Covenentalism alter the meaning? Or, are we to understand that God decreed in eternity past that He made a covenant with Himself to initiate creation, make man as He did with the ability to sin, exhaustively foreknowing they would do so, and yet without being the Author of sin; write His law on the hearts of all, unconditionally elect His own and damn others, bring forth His own begotten, crucify Him and raise Him from the dead, and so on, all under the umbrella of Gods decree that involved works, covenants, and grace? Yes, Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant they were in with God. And? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You are mixing too many components together. Adam and Christ are working, we are under grace. To mix the distinction is to befuddle more than your question, it really turns into Universalism 9and I know from what you posted you don"(tm)t believe that.)
[quote:8a06cbdd65]The very long thesis you posted for me to read, was that your own work? I ask because I found the exact same piece written here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonSummaryWitsiusEconomy.htm
#Book%202%20""%20Explaining%20the%20Covenant%20of%20Redemption [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Yes, it is my work. It is an expanded summary of Witsius"(tm) first and second book.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]As for the content: Well, it's precisely what I've been trying to understand, Web. That entire piece was built upon a presupposition that says God must have an overall covenant with the Son (yet, it is nowhere spoken of in Scripture - even piece milled)[/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Your are ignoring the exegetical facts as a systematic whole. Actually, you use different language and acquiese to it when you talk about Predestination. Historically, can you tell me who thought the Covenant of Redemption was important and who combined it into one Covenant of Grace?
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Then, after assuming this eternal covenant, and building off of the clear truth that God is a covenant making God, one begins to place the labels and go from there.[/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Everyone uses labels. If you believe in the Trinity, you use labels. Labels are good. Labels tells us and others where we are at and what we believe in systematic theology. Why do you hate labels?
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Next, there is an assumed CoW, CoG, and so forth. Covenant, covenant, covenant. Odd! Why not just say that God works in decrees, and that those decrees will be carried through because He is a decree making God? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Because God is a covenant making God and He uses the idea of covenant in every relationship he has, including creation.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]At least then we could see clearly from Scripture the truth in this. We could then say, "Ah yes, and because God is a decree making God, within those decrees are ministries/programs called *covenants* whereby He makes a pact, a formal agreement with His creation, and again, carries that promise forth with full assurance, because, after all, He's a God who decrees"? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
This is really where you are getting befuddled. Its not really a matter of systematic, for you, it is a matter of hermeneutics "" the basics of hermeneutics. Find me one statement, as I have asked you three times, for a comprehensive verse on the Trinity. Or if you would like "" where Jesus says of Himself "œI am God." Not where you would have to deduce these things, but that "" to use your language "" we could "œsee clearly from Scripture". (i.e. you mean "" verbatim). If you do not mean verbatim, you should have no problems with labels.
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Yes, God has made a covenant of grace, clearly. The New Covenant confirms this. And yes, I believe that this covenant of grace was decreed by God in eternity past, in Himself. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You have changed your position from your first post which said God did not do this. I am glad now you think so. You may find this very helpful "" it is a paper I wrote on Turretin"(tm)s view of the Covenant of Grace "" whereby he talks about how the Covenant of Grace is divided into two NECESSARY sections dealing with Eternity past and the era of time. To befuddle these is to remain confused in CT.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that this grace has been since the moment of creation, because we cannot sever one part of Gods eternal plan from another, yes? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Depends on what you mean. All our knowledge of God is accommodated, and we must think in parts. Our knowledge of God is essential in parts when we speak about God"(tm)s holiness, righteousness, justice, etc. God is not compartmentalized, but we think that way to understand the progression of Redemptive history. When I talk about God"(tm)s plan, there are stages to it. Otherwise we would not be able to differentiate the progression of the plan that God makes radically clear throughout Scripture.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that the Law was a tutor unto Christ, and that it still plays an intricate part in the life of the believer because it illustrates with brutal clarity of our continual inability. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Agreed. I like "œbrutal clarity" too.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]I believe that God initiated covenants throughout the course of history. And on it goes. Were you to discard the assumed label of the eternal CoR, which is Gods grace in election according to His own good pleasure, and then admit that the CoW is yet another label placed on something that God decreed, and then allowed, we might get somewhere. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Isn"(tm)t this exact what has been said of the Covenant of Redemption already? Election/Predestination through and In Christ is exactly what the Suffereing Servant comes to accomplish according to the will of the Father. That IS the Covenant of Redemption. You seem simply not to like the division but have not offered a reason why except that "œit is not clear" to you in Scripture because Scripture does not use the term. Again, that goes back to accepting "œrinity" or "œOriginal Sin."
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Again, unless I am just completely ignorant and cannot see this, I maintain my position. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
I think you have not really wrestled with the whole idea of Covenant in general. Its bigger than you are allowing.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]So, am I to understand that the clear implication that your being irked by men in "pastoral positions teaching the flock of God bad theology" isn't a reference to my being a teacher? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
No, definitely a reference. I am saying that I am saddened by the state of the church. You SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING THESE THINGS! They should have ALREADY been considered before you stepped into a pastoral position. You should WELL VERSED in Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, Apologetics, etc, BEFORE getting into the pulpit or a teaching position. That means when I ask you, as a PASTOR, have you read through the Institutes, or Witsius, or Turretin, or Hodge, you SHOULD SAY "" OF COURSE I HAVE, FOR I WOULD NOT BE IN A PASTORAL POSITION, LEADING THE FLOCK WITHOUT STUDYING FIRST!!
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Am I also to believe that this isn't ad hominem? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Its ad hominem with a twist. If you have time, you would understand what I mean by reading this paper (yes, I know, so many papers so little time):
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/WestminsterConfession/McMahonTheologicalTraditionalism.htm
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Further, am I to understand that when you speak of this bad theology "that has emerged out of thet 20-21st century revivalistic church movement" that you are not implying that I am not a part of that horrific movement, just because I do not agree with what you cannot prove? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Read the above paper I quoted. As for the "œprove point" well, that assumption on your part. You yourself said you were thinking through this. Both Craig and I offered a number of Scriptural idea to think about. Just the nature of Christ"(tm)s office of Prophet, Priest and King prove our point.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Am I to believe that this wasn't ad hominem? And lastly, although we could continue, am I to understand that when you say "they are throwing off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism in order to go with new and novel doctrines of which they are ignorant they are new and novel", that you aren't implying that I fall into that category? Am I to understand that this wasn't ad hominem? And all of this in the very same opening paragraph where you say you do not "ad in ad hominems." [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
I add them in to spark a little stir, not because they prove a theological point (although sometimes they do).
[quote:8a06cbdd65]By the way, it is also interesting that you clearly identify your assumption in the statement that to not adhere to Covenentalism is to throw "off 2000 years of Theological Traditionalism." [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
That is correct.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Where, might I ask, besides in the 2 or 3 Scriptures that keep being mentioned, is this doctrine so clearly taught? It isn't. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
If that is attitude, then we have nothing to discuss. If you would rather stick with what you have, fine with me. I have no burden to prove. You need to disprove (after reading) historical theology. Now that would be a task.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]In fact, you have yet to show me that there was an eternal pact or formal agreement made between the Father and the Son, whereby, there was a correspondence that held contingencies. It is clear to me that in eternity past God decreed all that was to happen. He predestined Christ to be the Redeemer. He predestined the Spirit to be the worker/power. He had ministries of covenants throughout, that He decreed. Yet in all of this I see no CoR, CoW, CoG, as Covenentalism defines it. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You are not really listening to what we are posting, or the Holy Spirit is not illuminating it to you. You should at least be able to reiterate what Reformed Theology teaches before you dismiss it. Remember, church history agrees with Reformed Theology, not deviations from it unless we get back to "œother theologies".
[quote:8a06cbdd65]Hosea 6:7. At first glance I was impressed with the forthwright appearance of this text. However, after reading it over and over, in context; after seeking out the great minds before us; and after seeking wise counsel, it seems that your presupposition has swayed your view of this text. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
Not really. What "œgreat minds" do you mean? Calvin, Turretin, Witsius, Edwards? You ONLY have one of two options with the text. 1) Adam was in a covenant of works with God "" and the Israelites broke their covenant as Adam broke his. Or, the Israelites broke a covenant like men broke a covenant "" that depends on how you translate the Hebrew. If you choose the former, it theologically sensible. If you choose the latter you are going to have to do some VERY fancy exegetical footwork to come up with a covenant in the Scriptures that god made apart from Israel that He made "œwith men". This is impossible. Secondly, as I already pointed out, Christ was the second Adam "" or second man, if you prefer. IF Christ is in any kind of relationship with God to fulfill the law (the Covenant of works), then being the second Adam, you would have to rewrite theology to come up with a new way of dealing with the first Adam. Adam was not in a Covenant of Grace. The stipulations were based on work. Reward is based on work. But he transgressed the covenant.
[quote:8a06cbdd65]That is my opinion, not an indictment. [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
And THAT, my friend, is why I am being difficult on you. We are not about opinions, we are about Confessional Subscriptionism to historical theology that has been taught since God made covenants with men. And THAT is our great difference.
[quote:8a06cbdd65] Yes, Israel was IN covenant with God. Yes, Adam was IN covenant with God. Yes, they both transgressed that covenant. But just what was the covenant, Web? Are we to let Covenentalism alter the meaning? Or, are we to understand that God decreed in eternity past that He made a covenant with Himself to initiate creation, make man as He did with the ability to sin, exhaustively foreknowing they would do so, and yet without being the Author of sin; write His law on the hearts of all, unconditionally elect His own and damn others, bring forth His own begotten, crucify Him and raise Him from the dead, and so on, all under the umbrella of Gods decree that involved works, covenants, and grace? Yes, Israel, like Adam, transgressed the covenant they were in with God. And? [/quote:8a06cbdd65]
You are mixing too many components together. Adam and Christ are working, we are under grace. To mix the distinction is to befuddle more than your question, it really turns into Universalism 9and I know from what you posted you don"(tm)t believe that.)