Darrell C,
,
While this sounds good the problem is the length of your rambling posts....
I have to edit the excess.....
I do pick out your errors....
Sure I can and have, but you just try and dismiss it:Unsure
Let the readers decide DC......if there are any...
not from what I see, but glad you are happy...
Sorry to disappoint you but My feathers are not ruffled by anything you have posted....
The sun here in Arizona burns me up, your posts not so much....
It is no big thing to me DC, really, but I will not let you post nonsense unchecked...
too bad....you could have used the phone a friend option to try and find out about the Covenant of Redemption...
:Alien
You are not going to ignore what is already presented and try and slip away are you?:Cautious
Infant Death and Salvation Two
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Darrell C, Jul 14, 2016.
Page 3 of 5
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Darrell C,
here is what was really posted;
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Darrell C,
And your position remains the same, right?
There are things we cannot know, and we are in error if we think we can.Click to expand...
I believe what scripture says here....you believe you can go beyond what is revealed....
1 cor2
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
And my point is just as I responded to one member, not only do I think we are meant to know, but I can show you this from Scripture itself.Click to expand...
So here is a relevant question to the OP: how can the Elect Infant, who is natural and cannot receive the spiritual things of God...be saved?Click to expand...
You admit that the Elect Infant will be saved, but you refuse to address when their salvation takes place.Click to expand...
The confession put it this way however;
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases
Reliance on the covenant of redemption you teach does not address the fact that they are conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again.
When does that happen?Click to expand... -
Iconoclast said: ↑
And you dance around the issue of "non-elect infants" that die.
..answered in post 10 and other placesClick to expand...
Iconoclast said: ↑Darrell C,
No...I mean the core teachings of the scriptures.
Let's examine your objection here....."the core teachings of the doctrines of men"
Guess what....God reveals His doctrine.....TO MEN-....THEY CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND TEACH IT-
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
you did pick and choose, but you tried.
not really...
I posted it.
lol....you do not understand the passage....the mystery is spoken of in vs3-6
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
this is what I spoke of earlier;
an answer is offered
you misunderstand the answer, you mangle it,
then you suggest that the person you are posting to said anything like you suggest???
Your failure to grasp the Covenant of Redemption leads you into unworkable solutions like what you suggest here.....
The C.O.R. is not dependant on your poll or 6 or 7 people who hold an emotional belief that is not bible based.
I did not hear this conference so I cannot really comment on it. Certainly I cannot take your word on it as I see how you take creative liberties with what other people believe....
This is in your mind..... I have said what I believe and I am not known as one who will not say what is on my mind.
I offered the confessional statement and I stand by it. I do not think it can be improved upon.
Others will answer for themselves I suppose. I did not take a poll to see what they are believing. People can claim anything...showing it is a different matter.
There is a response....you do not understand it yet, but it is there.
If you want to cut yourself off from godly men and their teaching....it is not wise, but you can do what you want.
Sure it was,,,,there is nothing here that is an insult. What is posted here is an accurate observation.
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with,but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.
I am speaking to you...so of course it is personal? You are posting to me, so that is also personal....that is how it works:Cautious There is nothing here that is an insult....if you think there is you might be a bit thin skinned to post on a message board.
]Click to expand...
I have addressed your statement that implies God has not revealed His will on this.
I have addressed your Covenant of Redemption theory.
I have even addressed the insults.
None of these addresses infants dying and how that relates to salvation. You have addressed only the "elect infants" that die, yet you refuse to publicly declare how it is this Covenant of Redemption bypasses man's separation from God, and the condemnation every man is under from conception.
But, I will take a look at your other posts, and see if you ever build up courage to publicly speak your beliefs.
God bless. -
Iconoclast said: ↑While this sounds good the problem is the length of your rambling posts....Click to expand...
Here's a short one: what happens to non-elect infants that die?
God bless. -
Iconoclast said: ↑You admit that the Elect Infant will be saved, but you refuse to address when their salvation takes place.
Okay...you forced me to reveal it.....elect infants get saved at 2:37 am....that is the time slot allotted for elect infants....can you prove it is not?:Wink:Wink:Wink
The confession put it this way however;
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleasesClick to expand...
I've asked several times.
If you believe there are non-elect infants that God sends to Hell...why won't you admit it?
Iconoclast said: ↑Reliance on the covenant of redemption you teach does not address the fact that they are conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again.
When does that happen?
This shows you still have no idea what you are even speaking about.:Cautious:Cautious:CautiousClick to expand...
So you are saying that men are not conceived natural? And that they do not remain natural until born again?
Just give straight answers.
If you are trying to teach the elect are in this covenant of redemption and therefore are not born natural and remain natural until regenerated, say so. If you are not...say so.
If your doctrine is too embarrassing to teach, don't you think you might want to rethink it?
God bless. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDarrell C said: ↑Okay, great, but what about...the non-elect infants that die?
I've asked several times.
If you believe there are non-elect infants that God sends to Hell...why won't you admit it?
So you are saying that men are not conceived natural? And that they do not remain natural until born again?
Just give straight answers.
If you are trying to teach the elect are in this covenant of redemption and therefore are not born natural and remain natural until regenerated, say so. If you are not...say so.
If your doctrine is too embarrassing to teach, don't you think you might want to rethink it?
God bless.Click to expand...
What sport was described in several of the posts....answer if you would....still waiting. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDarrell C said: ↑Doesn't matter if they are long or short...you still won't give straight answers.
Here's a short one: what happens to non-elect infants that die?
God bless.Click to expand... -
Iconoclast said: ↑
So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?
:Alien...this gets the slime emoticon because you do this quite often...that is....you asked 2 different things....I respond, but you then make as if the response is against the obvious truth....you just lectured me about quoting you to get the context.....lets see
here is what was really posted;Click to expand...
Here it is again:
Darrell C said: ↑Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture
.
Your denial and utter confusion here is the source of your trouble and frustration....look no further....this is most of it!:Thumbsup:Thumbsup:Thumbsup:Thumbsup
So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?Click to expand...
So let's carry on with your post, and I will start over again:
Iconoclast said: ↑
So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?
:Alien...this gets the slime emoticon because you do this quite often...that is....you asked 2 different things....I respond, but you then make as if the response is against the obvious truth....you just lectured me about quoting you to get the context.....lets see
here is what was really posted;Click to expand...
DC said;
Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture
My objection was not concerning man separated at conception.....but the second part where you deny the Covenant Redemption
That is not what "was really posted," Iconoclast.
Here is the full statement, and the times-tamp is made available, I am not just giving a loose quote:
Darrell C said: ↑Iconoclast said: ↑Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture
.
Your denial and utter confusion here is the source of your trouble and frustration....look no further....this is most of it!:Thumbsup:Thumbsup:Thumbsup:ThumbsupClick to expand...
So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?
I am confused because I state a Core Doctrine of Scripture that is supported by the entire New Testament?
Do you have the courage, Iconoclast, to actually discuss my confusion, rather than simply insulting me?
This is relevant to the OP, you know. This is one of the issues discussed with other members.
So show from Scripture what you mean in regards to this covenant of redemption you speak about, and how it is "confusion" to stand on the Basic Bible Principle that mankind is separated from God at conception...
...no exceptions.
Not even for the Elect.
Again, you can turn back to Doctrinal Discussion, Iconoclast, and while you may not get pats on the back your your conspirators, you will, I guarantee it...
...test your Doctrine, and in doing so, be strengthened.
That is my only goal with you, my friend.
Continued...Click to expand...
So how am I in error to ask you this...
So you do not see the Elect as separated from God at conception?
...?
It tracks your statements and asks a simple question which is the reasonable conclusion of your own statement?
Or did you forget that you are not the one that said...
Man is separated from God at conception, which is not nullified by some kind of Covenant that we do not find presented in Scripture
I really have no idea what it is you believe, to be honest, because you will not make any statement other than "We can't know and we should just trust God," elect infants are covered by the covenant of redemption," and you refuse to address non-elect infants.
Again, why is it you are involved in this thread? lol
As far as being paranoid, no, it isn't paranoia when your antagonists give their motives away...
Iconoclast said: ↑This is exactly what I said would take place and now it has once again......Click to expand...
When exactly did you say this? What thread, what post number?
So how about explaining this covenant of redemption, Iconoclast, if that is the only think you have to support elect infants being saved.
And a statement about non-elect infants, as well, seeing you, and only one other member have actually implied God sends babies to Hell.
God bless. -
Iconoclast said: ↑You still do not know what the Covenant of Redemption is and yet you oppose it,lol....
What sport was described in several of the posts....answer if you would....still waiting.Click to expand...
I know exactly what you are talking about, and have told you, and another member that it is bogus, and there is no support, either implicit of explicit...in all of Scripture.
The fact is that the New Covenant was established roughly two thousand years ago, and that is when men were brought into Eternal Relationship with God.
Not in eternity.
So your mythology needs to be either supported or it remains in a category of fictitious, pulpit bred doctrines of men.
You imply that men are not conceived and born under condemnation, which is something I don't even think cults teach.
So let's have it. Where's your Scripture?
God bless. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Darrell C,
I have asked you to show me in Scripture where the implicit teaching of the covenant of redemption is, to no avail.Click to expand...
I have asked you to explain the Covenant of Redemption.
I did not ask you to believe it.
I just asked that you give a basic understanding of what it is......you have not, although you scoff and mock at what you cannot even explain
So let's carry on with your post, and I will start over again:Click to expand...
You were asked two things before progress can be made here....I will repeat them for you.
1] explain what is the Covenant of Redemption...in other words....who was involved in it, when was it made, who are the objects of it....
2] I want you to answer this question....is this the fifth time I posted it
And here we have it.......your denial of what is the core teaching of scripture:Cautious:(:Cautious Let me guess....;).......your objection is......you do not see the ....words.....Covenant of redemption written out in any verse of scripture....so in your mind...it cannot exist is that it????
I can have some fun with this-
If I am reading the sports page and read an article that discusses and mentions the following items;
the strike zone
a stolen base
the pitchers mound
two doubles
a balk
a single
a grand slam
an earned run average
a batting average
the foul pole
the plate umpire
Would you struggle mightily to grasp what sport the article was speaking about?
Would you deny that sport exists because it was not mentioned by the name of it ?
If everyone other than you knew exactly what sport was being spoken about would you dismiss all of them?
If you denied the sport existed after reading all the elements and descriptions....do you think anyone should take you seriously after such objections???
Where do we find justification for your statement, "Election is based upon a person being in the Covenant of redemption," and how this is relevant to the topic of discussion?
The C.O.R . deals with all men who are saved. The topic is about salvation.....and you want to know how this is relevant???:Cautious:Cautious:Cautious
If the C.O.R. deals with all persons who will ever be saved, why would it not deal with elect infants?
And how is this relevant to the infant in the womb?
Why would you exclude them?:Cautious:Cautious
There is a relevance, but, this verse is a long way from justifying "Election is based upon a person being in the Covenant of redemption," and in fact goes against what you are teaching, because it shows...
it shows you are one confused puppy???
HEY DC,
What sport is described above? Hint, the word is not used in the descriptive parts....Can you describe which sport is being described, or is it a "mythical sport"????
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Darrell C,
You have been asked several times for a Scriptural presentation of this mythological covenant of redemption, Iconoclast.Click to expand...
I know exactly what you are talking aboutClick to expand...
, and have told you, and another member that it is bogus, and there is no support, either implicit of explicit...in all of Scripture.Click to expand...
then you should be able to explain it, if you know what it is.....unless you google it, you are not within miles of it:Roflmao:Roflmao:Roflmao
The fact is that the New Covenant was established roughly two thousand years ago, and that is when men were brought into Eternal Relationship with God.
Not in eternity.Click to expand...
So your mythologyClick to expand...
needs to be either supported or it remains in a category of fictitious, pulpit bred doctrines of men.Click to expand...
You imply that men are not conceived and born under condemnation, which is something I don't even think cults teachClick to expand...
Quote where I said this??? I think we all missed this .....looks more like a 9th commandment violation to everyone reading this.
So let's have it. Where's your Scripture?Click to expand... -
Iconoclast said: ↑No....it is you who were asked to describe it and you mock it once again....Click to expand...
I have done that. Here it is again: it is a pulpit bred mythological doctrine of man that suggests that there is a Covenant that stands outside of time.
And this is why the "elect" are safe no matter what happens, even if they die in birth.
But it stands in direct contradiction to the true Everlasting Covenant, which while it is outside of time and the physical realm...was not established relationally with men until Christ died, arose, returned to Heaven, sent the Promised Spirit, and established the New Covenant.
Elect infants are not safe because they are already in relationship with God prior to conception and birth.
This suggests men are conceived saved.
So do I mock such absurdity? Well...maybe I do. But, it is an honest statement, and it is a straightforward answer you, and at least one other...has been given several times.
Yet you still will not speak directly and talk about the non-elect infants which your holy writings, the confessions of men...are silent about. And only you and one other on this forum, that I know of...have implied God sends babies to Hell because they are non-elect.
Is that clear enough Iconoclast?
I really had hope for you. The disruption that use to be so prevalent has gotten better, but of course, I don't spend much time in the calv/arm board, so not sure if that is still the wild west or not. So I ask you again, why exactly are you in this thread if you have no intention of dealing with the topic? If you have no idea of expanding on why you think elect babies are safe?
Its not my burden to describe what you believe, it is yours.
God bless. -
Iconoclast said: ↑
You imply that men are not conceived and born under condemnation, which is something I don't even think cults teach
. :Alien...more slime
Quote where I said this??? I think we all missed this .....looks more like a 9th commandment violation to everyone reading this.Click to expand...
Darrell C said: ↑
Iconoclast said: ↑
Reliance on the covenant of redemption you teach does not address the fact that they are conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again.
When does that happen?
This shows you still have no idea what you are even speaking about.:Cautious:Cautious:Cautious
So you are saying that men are not conceived natural? And that they do not remain natural until born again?
Just give straight answers.
If you are trying to teach the elect are in this covenant of redemption and therefore are not born natural and remain natural until regenerated, say so. If you are not...say so.
If your doctrine is too embarrassing to teach, don't you think you might want to rethink it?Click to expand...
The conclusion is drawn from your own statement.
I said man is conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again, and you say...
This shows you still have no idea what you are even speaking about.:Cautious:Cautious:Cautious
So are you now going to affirm what I said?
Please do so.
Then we can pick the discussion back up.
God bless. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDarrell C said: ↑Okay, so you are saying that I must describe what you believe?
I have done that. Here it is again: it is a pulpit bred mythological doctrine of man that suggests that there is a Covenant that stands outside of time.
And this is why the "elect" are safe no matter what happens, even if they die in birth.
But it stands in direct contradiction to the true Everlasting Covenant, which while it is outside of time and the physical realm...was not established relationally with men until Christ died, arose, returned to Heaven, sent the Promised Spirit, and established the New Covenant.
Elect infants are not safe because they are already in relationship with God prior to conception and birth.
This suggests men are conceived saved.
So do I mock such absurdity? Well...maybe I do. But, it is an honest statement, and it is a straightforward answer you, and at least one other...has been given several times.
Yet you still will not speak directly and talk about the non-elect infants which your holy writings, the confessions of men...are silent about. And only you and one other on this forum, that I know of...have implied God sends babies to Hell because they are non-elect.
Is that clear enough Iconoclast?
I really had hope for you. The disruption that use to be so prevalent has gotten better, but of course, I don't spend much time in the calv/arm board, so not sure if that is still the wild west or not. So I ask you again, why exactly are you in this thread if you have no intention of dealing with the topic? If you have no idea of expanding on why you think elect babies are safe?
Its not my burden to describe what you believe, it is yours.
God bless.Click to expand...
You are all worked up about this topic but as I originally stated you will never come to truth with your hostility to the truth of God.....
What sport was described in the other posts...that was the second question....you can answer it yes????
ps. here is from post33.....in the first infant thread-
I think leaving the issue in God's hands settles it for everyone.
And that is one of the issues I would like to discuss.
Click to expand...Click to expand...
What is your Biblical Basis for the idea that all are sinners at conception?
Secondly, if this is the case, then how is it that the Elect that die as infants...are saved?
Click to expand...Click to expand...
The blood that propitiates the wrath of God is applied as a covering to the elect children;
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one:
for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
And I will set this by itself because this is one of the key issues of the OP.
And I will also, to make sure I am not misunderstood, declare my own position: men are not born with sin as though it is a disease, they are born separated from God which is the reason why, when they reach an age of comprehension...they sin. Also to clarify, I am not speaking about the extrabiblical "age of accountability," because I believe this is various among men, and is dependent on their experience. For example, a child growing up in a war torn country can be a murderer by the age of eight, whereas another eight year old, who has never been exposed to very much, can be bereft of knowledge which might bring about a guilt for such intent.
Click to expand...Click to expand...
[some might consider them long, sort of like some puritan writings where they take two pages to say what one paragraph might have said}
Continued...Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Darrell C
Here it is;
Darrell C said: ↑Here it is:
The conclusion is drawn from your own statement.Click to expand...
I said man is conceived natural, and remain natural until they are born again, and you say...
This shows you still have no idea what you are even speaking about.:Cautious:Cautious:Cautious
So are you now going to affirm what I said?
Darrell C,
Just give straight answers.
If you are trying to teach the elect are in this covenant of redemption and therefore are not born natural and remain natural until regenerated, say so. If you are not...say so.
If your doctrine is too embarrassing to teach, don't you think you might want to rethink it?Click to expand...
The Covenant of Redemption was made in eternity past before the world was.....
It was made among the persons of the Godhead alone....
Your repeated mocking and boasting of false knowledge indicates a proud spirit which is considered the province of a foolish person. Why not check that at the door;
Read and learn, or remain in your ignorant error and proud boasting;
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/covenant-redemption/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof
II. The Covenant of Redemption
A. SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THIS DESIRABLE.
There are different representations respecting the parties in the covenant of grace. Some consider them to be the triune God and man, either without qualification, or qualified in some way, as “the sinner,” “the elect,” or “man in Christ”; others, God the Father, as representing the Trinity, and Christ as representing the elect;[Westm. Larger Cat., Q. 31.] and still others, since the days of Coccejus, distinguish two covenants, namely, the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between the Father and the Son, and, as based on this, the covenant of grace between the triune God and the elect, or the elect sinner. The second of these representations has a certain advantage from a systematic point of view. It may claim the support of such passages as Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:21,22,47-49, and stresses the inseparable connection between the pactum salutis and the covenant of grace. It brings out the unity of the covenant in Christ, and is advocated among others by Boston, Gib, Dick, A. Kuyper Sr., H. Kuyper, and A. Kuyper, Jr. The third representation is more perspicuous, however, is easier to understand, and is therefore more serviceable in a practical discussion of the doctrine of the covenant. It escapes a great deal of confusion that is incidental to the other view, and is followed by the majority of Reformed theologians, such as Mastricht, à Marck, Turretin, Witsius, Heppe, the Hodges, Shedd, Vos, Bavinck, and Honig. There is no essential difference between these two representations. Says Dr. Hodge: “There is no doctrinal difference between those who prefer the one statement and those who prefer the other; between those who comprise all the facts of Scripture relating to the subject under one covenant between God and Christ as the representative of His people, and those who distribute them under two.”[Syst. Theol. II, p. 358; cf. also Dabney, Lect. on Theol., p. 432; Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. III, p. 240] This being the case, the third mode of representing the whole matter undoubtedly deserves the preference. But in following it we should bear in mind what Shedd says: “Though this distinction (between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace) is favored by Scripture statements, it does not follow that there are two separate and independent covenants antithetic to the covenant of works. The covenant of grace and redemption are two modes or phases of the one evangelical covenant of mercy.”[Dogm. Theol. II, p. 360.]
B. SCRIPTURAL DATA FOR THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
The name “counsel of peace” is derived from Zech. 6:13. Coccejus and others found in this passage a reference to an agreement between the Father and the Son. This was clearly a mistake, for the words refer to the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah. The Scriptural character of the name cannot be maintained, but this, of course, does not detract from the reality of the counsel of peace. The doctrine of this eternal counsel rests on the following Scriptural basis.
1. Scripture clearly points to the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the eternal decree or counsel of God, Eph. 1:4 ff.; 3:11; II Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Jas. 2:5; I Pet. 1:2, etc. Now we find that in the economy of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the Father is the originator, the Son the executor, and the Holy Spirit the applier. This can only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons of the Trinity, so that their internal relations assume the form of a covenant life. In fact, it is exactly in the trinitarian life that we find the archetype of the historical covenants, a covenant in the proper and fullest sense of the word, the parties meeting on a footing of equality, a true suntheke.
2. There are passages of Scripture which not only point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal, Eph. 1:4; 3:9,11, but also indicate that it was of the nature of a covenant. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent, and repeatedly refers to a commission which He had received from the Father, John 5:30,43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12. And in Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22 He is clearly regarded as a representative head, that is, as the head of a covenant.
3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again, in Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice for sin. Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant. Moreover, in John 17:5 Christ claims a reward, and in John 17:6,9,24 (cf. also Phil. 2:9-11) He refers to His people and His future glory as a reward given Him by the Father.
4. There are two Old Testament passages which connect up the idea of the covenant immediately with the Messiah, namely, Ps. 89:3, which is based on II Sam. 7:12-14, and is proved to be a Messianic passage by Heb. 1:5; and Isa. 42:6, where the person referred to is the Servant of the Lord. The connection clearly shows that this Servant is not merely Israel. Moreover, there are passages in which the Messiah speaks of God as His God, thus using covenant language, namely, Ps. 22:1, 2, and Ps. 40:8.Click to expand... -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
pt2;
C. THE SON IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
1. THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF CHRIST IN THIS COVENANT. The position of Christ in the covenant of redemption is twofold. In the first place He is Surety (Gr. egguos), a word that is used only in Heb. 7:22. The derivation of this word is uncertain, and therefore cannot aid us in establishing its meaning. But the meaning is not doubtful. A surety is one who engages to become responsible for it that the legal obligations of another will be met. In the covenant of redemption Christ undertook to atone for the sins of His people by bearing the necessary punishment, and to meet the demands of the law for them. And by taking the place of delinquent man He became the last Adam, and is as such also the Head of the covenant, the Representative of all those whom the Father has given Him. In the covenant of redemption, then, Christ is both Surety and Head. He took upon Himself the responsibilities of His people. He is also their Surety in the covenant of grace, which develops out of the covenant of redemption. The question has been raised, whether the suretyship of Christ in the counsel of peace was conditional or unconditional. Roman jurisprudence recognizes two kinds of suretyship, the one designated fidejussor, and the other expromissor. The former is conditional, and the latter unconditional. The former is a surety who undertakes to pay for another, provided this person does not himself render satisfaction. The burden of guilt remains on the guilty party until the time of payment. The latter, however, is a surety who takes upon himself unconditionally to pay for another, thus relieving the guilty party of his responsibility at once. Coccejus and his school maintained that in the counsel of peace Christ became a fidejussor, and that consequently Old Testament believers enjoyed no complete forgiveness of sins. From Rom. 3:25 they inferred that for those saints there was only a paresis, an overlooking of sin, and no aphesis or complete forgiveness, until Christ really made atonement for sin. Their opponents asserted, however, that Christ took upon Himself unconditionally to render satisfaction for His people, and therefore became a surety in the specific sense of an expromissor. This is the only tenable position, for: (a) Old Testament believers received full justification or forgiveness, though the knowledge of it was not as full and clear as it is in the New Testament dispensation. There was no essential difference between the status of the Old, and that of the New Testament believers, Ps. 32:1,2,5; 51:1-3, 9-11; 103:3,12; Isa. 43:25; Rom. 3:3,6-16; Gal. 3:6-9. The position of Coccejus reminds one of that of the Roman Catholics with their Limbus Patrum. (b) Coccejus’ theory makes the work of God in making provision for the redemption of sinners dependent on the uncertain obedience of man in an entirely unwarranted way. There is no sense in saying that Christ became a conditional surety, as if it were still possible that the sinner should pay for himself. God’s provision for the redemption of sinners is absolute. This is not the same as saying that He does not treat and address the sinner as personally guilty until he is justified by faith, for this is exactly what God does do. (c) In Rom. 3:25, the passage to which Coccejus appeals, the apostle uses the word paresis (overlooking or passing over), not because the individual believers in the Old Testament did not receive full pardon of sin, but because during the old dispensation the forgiveness of sin assumed the form of a paresis, as long as sin had not been adequately punished in Christ, and the absolute righteousness of Christ had not been revealed in the cross.
2. THE CHARACTER THIS COVENANT ASSUMED FOR CHRIST. Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and, as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace. For Him the law of the original covenant applied, namely, that eternal life could only be obtained by meeting the demands of the law. As the last Adam Christ obtains eternal life for sinners in reward for faithful obedience, and not at all as an unmerited gift of grace. And what He has done as the Representative and Surety of all His people, they are no more in duty bound to do. The work has been done, the reward is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits of Christ’s accomplished work through grace.
3. CHRIST’S WORK IN THE COVENANT LIMITED BY THE DECREE OF ELECTION. Some have identified the covenant of redemption and election; but this is clearly a mistake. Election has reference to the selection of the persons destined to be the heirs of everlasting glory in Christ. The counsel of redemption, on the other hand, refers to the way in which and the means by which grace and glory are prepared for sinners. Election, indeed, also has reference to Christ and reckons with Christ, for believers are said to be elected in Him. Christ Himself is, in a sense, the object of election, but in the counsel of redemption He is one of the contracting parties. The Father deals with Christ as the Surety of His people. Logically, election precedes the counsel of redemption, because the suretyship of Christ, like His atonement, is particular. If there were no preceding election, it would necessarily be universal. Moreover, to turn this around would be equivalent to making the suretyship of Christ the ground of election, while Scripture bases election entirely on the good pleasure of God.
4. CONNECTION OF THE SACRAMENTS USED BY CHRIST WITH THE COVENANT. Christ used the sacraments of both the Old and the New Testament. It is evident, however, that they could not mean for Him what they do for believers. In His case they could be neither symbols nor seals of saving grace; nor could they be instrumental in strengthening saving faith. If we distinguish, as we are doing, between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, then the sacraments were for Christ in all probability sacraments of the former rather than of the latter. Christ took upon Himself in the covenant of redemption to meet the demands of the law. These had assumed a definite form when Christ was on earth and also included positive religious regulations. The sacraments formed a part of this law, and therefore Christ had to subject Himself to them, Matt. 3:15. At the same time they could serve as seals of the promises which the Father had given to the Son. The objection may be raised to this representation that the sacraments were indeed fit symbols and seals of the removal of sin and of the nourishment of spiritual life, but from the nature of the case could not have this meaning for Christ, who had no sin and needed no spiritual nourishment. The objection may be met, at least to a certain extent, by calling attention to the fact that Christ appeared on earth in a public and official capacity. Though He had no personal sin, and no sacrament could therefore signify and seal to Him its removal, yet He was made to be sin for His people, II Cor. 5:21, by being burdened with their guilt; and consequently the sacraments could signify the removal of this burden, according to the promise of the Father, after He had completed His atoning work. Again, though we cannot speak of Christ as exercising saving faith in the sense in which this is required of us, yet as Mediator He had to exercise faith in a wider sense by accepting the promises of the Father believingly, and by trusting the Father for their fulfilment. And the sacraments could serve as signs and seals to strengthen this faith as far as His human nature was concerned. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
pt3;
D. REQUIREMENTS AND PROMISES IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
1. REQUIREMENTS. The Father required of the Son, who appeared in this covenant as the Surety and Head of His people, and as the last Adam, that He should make amends for the sin of Adam and of those whom the Father had given Him, and should do what Adam failed to do by keeping the law and thus securing eternal life for all His spiritual progeny. This requirement included the following particulars:
a. That He should assume human nature by being born of a woman, and thus enter into temporal relations; and that He should assume this nature with its present infirmities, though without sin, Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 2:10,11,14,15; 4:15. It was absolutely essential that He should become one of the human race.
b. That He, who as the Son of God was superior to the law, should place Himself under the law; that He should enter, not merely into the natural, but also into the penal and federal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty for sin and to merit everlasting life for the elect, Ps. 40:8; Matt. 5:17,18; John 8:28,29; Gal. 4:4,5; Phil. 2:6-8.
c. That He, after having merited forgiveness of sins and eternal life for His own, should apply to them the fruits of His merits: complete pardon, and the renewal of their lives through the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. By doing this He would render it absolutely certain that believers would consecrate their lives to God, John 10:16; John 16:14,15; 17:12,19-22; Heb. 2: 10-13; 7:25.
2. PROMISES. The promises of the Father were in keeping with His requirements. He promised the Son all that was required for the performance of His great and comprehensive task, thereby excluding all uncertainty in the operation of this covenant. These promises included the following:
a. That He would prepare the Son a body, which would be a fit tabernacle for him; a body in part prepared by the immediate agency of God and uncontaminated by sin, Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5.
b. That He would endow Him with the necessary gifts and graces for the performance of His task, and particularly would anoint Him for the Messianic offices by giving Him the Spirit without measure, a promise that was fulfilled especially at the time of His baptism, Isa. 42:1,2; 61:1; John 3:31.
c. That He would support Him in the performance of His work, would deliver Him from the power of death, and would thus enable Him to destroy the dominion of Satan and to establish the Kingdom of God, Isa. 42:1-7; 49:8; Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-28.
d. That He would enable Him, as a reward for His accomplished work, to send out the Holy Spirit for the formation of His spiritual body, and for the instruction, guidance, and protection of the Church, John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13, 14; Acts 2:33.
e. That He would give unto Him a numerous seed in reward for His accomplished work, a seed so numerous that it would be a multitude which no man could number, so that ultimately the Kingdom of the Messiah would embrace the people of all nations and tongues, Ps. 22:27; 72:17.
f. That He would commit to Him all power in heaven and on earth for the government of the world and of His Church, Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:5-9; and would finally reward Him as Mediator with the glory which He as the Son of God had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
pt4;
E. THE RELATION OF THIS COVENANT TO THE COVENANT OF GRACE.
The following points indicate the relation in which this covenant stands to the covenant of grace:
1. The counsel of redemption is the eternal prototype of the historical covenant of grace. This accounts for the fact that many combine the two into a single covenant. The former is eternal, that is, from eternity, and the latter, temporal in the sense that it is realized in time. The former is a compact between the Father and the Son as the Surety and Head of the elect, while the latter is a compact between the triune God and the elect sinner in the Surety.
2. The counsel of redemption is the firm and eternal foundation of the covenant of grace. If there had been no eternal counsel of peace between the Father and the Son, there could have been no agreement between the triune God and sinful men. The counsel of redemption makes the covenant of grace possible.
3. The counsel of redemption consequently also gives efficacy to the covenant of grace, for in it the means are provided for the establishment and execution of the latter. It is only by faith that the sinner can obtain the blessings of the covenant, and in the counsel of redemption the way of faith is opened. The Holy Spirit, which produces faith in the sinner, was promised to Christ by the Father, and the acceptance of the way of life through faith was guaranteed by Christ.
The covenant of redemption may be defined as the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.
This is for starters and for anyone who would like to learn truth.
http://www.blogos.org/exploringtheword/Covenant-Theology-4-Redemption.php -
Iconoclast said: ↑As I suspected....you cannot do it. You fail to handle it here so as I said you will not solve the puzzle, because as any explanation is now given, you will deny the explanation at all cost.
You are all worked up about this topic but as I originally stated you will never come to truth with your hostility to the truth of God.....
What sport was described in the other posts...that was the second question....you can answer it yes????
ps. here is from post33.....in the first infant thread-
But as I was saying....you state several ideas that many might agree with, but then you assume every reader is following you and then you seemed a bit startled to find you get a reaction....just an observation.Click to expand...
That can be seen Here.
You can also look on Page Two to see the first post responding to that.
And I will say it again...it is not my responsibility to declare what it is you believe.
But thanks for finally giving me something to consider concerning your doctrine, in the following posts.
Is there something in these doctrines of men that you feel is significant to the discussion?
God bless.
Page 3 of 5