I was wondering if you could show proof of this statement in scripture?
Of course not. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The scriptures do not always come right out and say things like "The Blessed Virgin Mary is the New Eve of the New Covenant" (which is what the Early Fathers said) No, this is a threme which is taught in concept as you study out the plan of God from Genesis to Revelation.
It all depends on how you are using admonish. It can mean to counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution. Or it can be more of a rebuking of something done wrong. My interpretation of this text leads me to believe that God is just counseling Moses to make sure to set up the temple according to God's command.
Actually, when I looked it up on Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the NT, it did carry the weight of being more than just mere counseling. There is a serious weight
First, I would like to know if you believe that we ( reformed protestants ) are not covenantal believers?
No. Far from that. It was as a Presbyterian in the PCA that I first even heard of covenant and learned to love it. My feeling is that the understanding you have of covenant is based primarily on the idea of a legal contract rather than the paradigm of marriage.
From your recent posts, it seems by your comments that we know nothing of the covenantal concept clearly tought to us in scripture. I'm not sure if you are mistaken in thinking that most of the regulars of this forum are dispensational or if your idea of covenant theology is drastically different from ours.
Our ideas of covenant theology are quite different in the same way that a contract to buy a house is profoundly different from a marriage. In a contract, you don't even have to have a relationship with the one with whom you are making the contract. It can evn be done by third parties on behalf of the primary parties of the contract.
In a marriage, however, there are great issues of love, union, care for one another, commitment to one another, and most importantly, the "one flesh" union between the two.
I do hope you see the differences.
Now with saying this, keep in mind that this topic has not made mention of papal succession. So I will believe that the "Foundation" that you mentioned is not just merely a foundation that is ultimately leading to papal authority. So if this is the case, could you please clarify more on your intent with this post? I believe you are clearly trying to argue a point in our doctrinal differences, but it would be more beneficial to us if you made it clearer where your disagreements lie.
My apologies. Seems I have done a bit of a hash in trying to state where I see that there is but one head on earth over the Church.
Ray Sutton's 5 point paradigm of the covenant states in point 5 that there is sucession in covenant. This is, for instance, why it was so important to be born the first born of the family, for the first born was the one who would become the covenantal head of the family upon the death of the father. This blessing of sucession was what Esau forfeited to Jacob. Easu was in line to be the covenantal head of the family. But he sold his birthright.
This is how the covenant works in covenantal family structures. The Church on earth is a family. It has a covenantal head we call the Holy Father. Upon his death, another takes seat in the office.
One last note. Please keep in mind Ed that, just in the short time I've been a regular here on the Highway, we have had devout RC's visit us. But this would be like myself going to a RC church trying to share my reformed protestant beliefs. Believe me when I tell you, I am in the process of leaving a liberal presbyterian church because I can't share my reformed beliefs there and they're presbyterian! So there is no way that I would desire to go to a RC forum to try to share my Calvinism with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative in any way. This is all strictly out of love. All I'm trying to do, is make you aware of the fact that, your beliefs aren't shared here. So your teachings will most likely be rejected. Which I know you are aware of. But my main concern is that, the few RC brothers we've had visit all seem to eventually leave disgruntled after what usally ends up with a less then loving thread. So all I'm trying to say is, please don't get upset with our convictions. I have a strong feeling that neither yourself or we will be persueded as goes the continual division between our two denominations.
Y.B.I.C. with love,
Dave.
--------------------
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Well, actually I found this forum quite by accident. I was doing some link hopping on the subject of Preterist Eschatology and this link came up. I thought I mind find some Preterest discussions here. When I saw the discussion on the covenant, I just felt I had to jump in. It's my favorite subject.
I am not offended by our differences. I quite expected them, and in fact, I have so far been considerably impressed by the gracious conduct of those who disagree with me. On some other forums, the minute I walked in the ad hominums started. I expect disagreement and even some amount of passion in disagreement.
And just for your information, I was a very passionate and dedicated Calvinist at one time. Sometimes people do convert. But that is not my job. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
