Hmmmmmmmmmm.....thought I posted a reply to this. Can't seem to find it.
Just goes to show you shouldn't let the electronically challenged around puters. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Anyhow, to try to answer again, I'm afraid I know nothing of either of these men's views. My views would be expressed nicely by Scott Hahn in any of his works on the covenant of God.
Baptism is the rite of covenant entry by which a human being is joined to the family covenant of the kingdom of God.
Let me ask you this. In the Old Covenant, there was a very distinct rite by which a man and his family were entered into the covenantal kingdom. WHAT then is the rite in the New Covenant, for if there was a rite in the Old Covenant, there must needs be a rite in the New Covenant also.
If you deny the need for a rite of covenant entrance in the New Covenant, please explain why.
Hi Will, I didn't expect that reply! Am I to understand it that iyour sticking point is that we cannot know for sure that another individual is saved? I can concede that in a heartbeat.
But what I won't concede is that the ordinance is for "mere" professors. I have to say "mere" because you ignored my earlier comment about the plain use of the word professor. Someone can't walk up to us and say "I believe Christ died for my sins, baptise me" -well, they can, but since that isn't a credible profession of faith we shouldn't do it. So no, it isn't just "professor's baptism". Profession alone is not enough.
The Biblical madate is for believers to be baptised. Part of the onus here is on the believer and the other part is on the baptiser. The other Person in the equation is the Holy Spirit. When the believer and the baptiser are convinced of regeneration (not infallibly, I'll grant you that) then the believer should be baptised at his request. Bear in mind that in the Apostolic examples in Acts we have Apostolic discernment in operation and the heightened manifestations of the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless, belief was professed.
There is all the difference in the world between a profession and a credible profession of faith.
On a related issue (and as further illustration of my point here)...is the Lord's Supper an ordinance for believers? I think yes (as only they can participate worthily). Do unbelievers sometimes participate? Yes (through poor church practice and teaching and diffrent theological stance). But...and this is my point..the fact that error does occur in no way takes away from the true application and use of the ordinance which is for believers only.
On a related issue (and as further illustration of my point here)...is the Lord's Supper an ordinance for believers? I think yes (as only they can participate worthily). Do unbelievers sometimes participate? Yes (through poor church practice and teaching and diffrent theological stance). But...and this is my point..the fact that error does occur in no way takes away from the true application and use of the ordinance which is for believers only.
No scripture. The Bible shows baptism is for professors and their households. The question is whether the entire household believed, and if any children were present. I have seen you and SemperReformanda continually put forth that baptism is the same as the Lords supper. However, I have yet to see scripture equivocating this. This is simply a notion, an ideal, not found in practice in the NT.
On your dealing with OIKOS. I do not believe the language requires believing to mean every individual in the OIKOS. I do however notice nothing that would explain such a radical departure from OT covenant understanding, especially since some of these passages are couched in just such an understanding. Your definition of OIKOS, is nowhere to be found outside baptist hermeneutics. It's also nowhere to be found for the first 1500 years of Church history. Here is a quote showing exactly what I mean.......
Quote
"The phrase 'he and his (whole) house' denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. In no single case is the term 'house' restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant. Whilst slaves are very often not reckoned as part of the 'house,' the inclusion of the children is taken for granted. Indeed, the Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in. Since the primitive Church takes the phrase over as a firmly established biblical expression, the statement 'it includes small children as well as others' applies to its employment in the New Testament as well" (Jeremias, p. 24).
On the Contrary, the New Covenant is entered by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think you err when you state "must" be a corresponding ritual in the NT as in the OT. See my longer response to you. Regards,D
Hi Will, No Scripture? I cited Mark 16:15-16 didn't I? You don't seem to be very relaxed in this discussion so maybe I should just leave.There isn't any point in stirring up contention and you seem to have no interest in openly exploring issues.
I could rehearse the "standard baptist arguments" and some of my own if you want but you would say "I don't believe that". I had hoped to get beyond that as to "why" we think as we do. One of us is wrong on an important issue.
A test for your spirit in this discussion would be to ask you what you think the [weak points of your own position are. That would both indicate whether your interest is "exploratory" or just "defensive"; and allow contributions to progress discussion.
Perhaps I should discuss this with someone else if you'd rather.
Re the Oikos point -taking your definitions of the word as a word, we still have only 5 scriptural cases of household baptism. Two of these cite belief prior to baptism (although you gainsay that belief means saving faith in Christ). Of those remaining we have the Phillipian Jailor -who conventionally would be a retired legionnaire in his fifties, making grown children at least as likely as infants; and Lydia -a professional businesswoman probably without children or widow with older children. That leaves a fifth chance for you to squeeze an infant into the mix. Not solid ground, even if you do want to argue from silence. You didn't address my other points.
One suggestion: I would rather that for clarity we use the term infant throughout when we mean infant. It prevents the confusion caused when I say we should baptise children when they credibly profess saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hello OC, This isn’t a topic I had particularly sought to discuss with an orthodox roman catholic but since you have taken the time to write a response I’ll try to answer you. One thing that might be useful in my contention with paedobaptists is that I would consider their position to be an incomplete reformation of yours (if you’re a good “orthodox roman catholic” that is. ). There should be a discernible continuum from my views on the Baptist side through theirs to yours. I don’t intend to be hostile or insulting in anything I say so please bear with me.
Quote
The foundation for an understanding of Baptist (and actually Presbyterian as well) covenantal theology is that which creates the wrong ideas as to what a covenant is in the first place. Thus, setting a wrong foundation, one is quickly quagmired and sinks into a theology which allows for no escape.
Well, I don't really feel I'm in a quagmire. Particularly not on the issue of baptism and I don't want to divert the thread into other aspects of Roman Catholic Theology if we can help it. You make much of the "legal sounding" terminology we use in discussing covenants. I grant that it is judicial terminology much of it, but it also carries the senses of morality and binding commitment. You contrast the judicial model with the matrimonial model, but at root they are the same. God's perfect justice is as important as His perfect love. He cannot deny either attribute. Have you considered that were it not for the perfect justice of God, sin could simply be ignored and Atonement rendered unnecessary? I'm speaking foolishly here only to highlight that the dichotomy you raise is a false one. There is no inherent fault in speaking of the Justice of God in the economy of Redemption in terms of the word covenant. Before I forget OC, I'm afraid those were only my statements and not Dr Owen's. I can post Owen's treatment as an attachment if anyone wants. We know that marriage is a covenant relationship between husband and wife and the NT makes it clear to us that it also typifies the union of Christ and His Bride, the church. I find your correspondence between the human family and the Trinity highly questionable. Was man created in the image of God or was the family. I think your plausible analogy here is unbiblical (but then, you never did subscribe to Sola Scriptura...did you?). Note there are three people in a family only when there is one child. And extended families do distort the picture a bit as well. Setting that aside for now...what was the great Trinitarian Covenant of Love you allude to? What was its purpose and its ends? Where would you support this idea from in scripture? Now to be fair, the terms Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works that we work with are extra-Biblical terms, but they are rather shortcuts for theological understandings that we consider in themselves to be Biblical -we just need a shorthand to refer to them. When the terms are misunderstood or misapplied, then we have scope for error. But we have just as much scope for error when the theology at the root of our terminology is in error. So I don't get too hung up on whether we need everything to be called a "covenant" if it fulfils all the attributes of a binding agreement and settled purpose on the part of God, whether conditional or not (as in the unconditional (!) Noahic Covenant).
Your response to my summary statement "The purpose of Redemption, as that of all Creation, is to glorify God." Launched into a discussion of animate v inanimate creation and sonship which I thought was redundant to the argument. The profundity of the term sons of God is not lost on me, but neither isw it relevant here. God is glorified by initial Creation (spiritual, sensate, animate and inanimate) but the Glory that redounds to Him in Redemption and its grand display of His infinite attributes of ove, justice and mercy would not be so great in an unfallen realm. And you're right, you shouldn't argue with scripture.
The involvement of love and relationship is not external to the Reformed view of the covenant. Think about what and why law itself exists and what it reflects - the righteous have no need of laws to do what is good and right. So applying perfect law to a relationship merely speaks of the righteousness of it. Building in our modern cynical attitudes to corrupt human legal and judicial constructs unnecessarily prejudices the consideration of scriptural justice and love.
Quote
This is where Reformed understandings of covenant are completely at a loss. Yes, there are civil "covenants" such as the Suzerain covenants described by Ray Sutton in his book, but they are civil and legal covenants. We are created THE CHILDREN OF GOD -- Adam our forefather being the prototype and foundational model. Everything in the kingdom covenant points to the trinitarian model of family, even the Church (Holy Father, Holy Mother Church, offspring)
Did you notice that Adam's son after the fall was created in his (Adam's) image, not God's? (Gen 5:3). That we are no longer born "the children of God"? I'm not going to follow you into RC ecclesiology because we would then be abandoning scripture. I wrote "God makes an explicit stipulation on Adam (aka The Covenant of Works with Adam -)" and you responded:
Quote
Every covenant has oaths/sacntions. The "works" which you claim that Adam was placed under were nothing more than the terms of the covenant relationship into which Adam was created. The same thing works even today. If my son continues to support the Democratic party, knowing how I feel about them, I am more than likely to DISINHERIT HIM!! That is what happened when Adam fell. He disobeyed the covenant structure based in the rules of the household and was severed from his relationship with his Father. There is no such thing as a "covenant of works". All relationships (covenants) depend upon works to maintain the relationship. If I start performing works which sever the relationship between my wife and I (getting drunk every Friday night, abusive treatment of her, whoring, etc.) that relationship will be deep sixed and pretty dern soon!!
Well...the difference would be the federal standing Adam had as head of the human race. His fall took us all down with him. Use whatever terminology you will and you still have to describe the means by which the human race fell. For brevity I would call it the Covenant of Works with Adam because the term is limited to discussion of Adam's rebellious act and its consequences and is understood by most in theological discussions. How do you account for Adam breaking the relationship for the whole human race? Your comments on the complete absence of human merit for restoration to relation with God we agree on. But, slightly repetitively, how does got justly (in terms of His own perfect Justice) restore us?
I wrote: 5 Abraham, initially an idol worshipper, is called by God from Ur and God makes an important covenant with him. This covenant functions on both a typical temporal level and a spiritual eternal level. And you responded:
Quote
Excuse me? Perhaps Mr. Owen has a text I can read in which he proves this assertion? I could not disagree more, and neither could the scriptures such as John 5: 28 - 29 and Romans 2: 5 - 10. (I am, however, assuming that when Mr. Owen speaks of the idea of "spiritual level", he is referring to the idea that upon being "imputed" righteousness through the making of covenant with God, on a spiritual level then became "once saved -- always saved")
Again, not Owen here, just me. But John 5:28-29 and Romans 2: 5-10 speak of God's Judgement. I fail to see the connection with my statement. My statement had respect to the way in which the Abrahamic Covenant is interpreted re physical descendants and Canaan on the one hand (the national, temporal, typical aspects) and "spiritual Israel" and the Church on the other (the eternal, spiritual aspect). Soooo....I don't think you understood me here at all. I continued on the Abrahamic Covenant: "The typical aspect is national, temporal, and has conditional blessings. Even in its typical aspect, however, it is a covenant of grace as it is made with Abraham and his seed." And you responded
Quote
Now he wants to change the rules to fit his theology. It is suddenly a covenant of grace, even though Christ has not come yet to inaugurate this so called "covenant of grace" Is it just me or can you also see a serious flaw in his thinking here?
I think you may be confused about which covenant we are speaking here. In Reformed Theology the Old Covenant of Hebrews 8:6 is the Mosaic/Sinaitic, the so-called CoW with Adam is in Eden, The Abrahamic was always a Covenant of Grace (Abraham couldn't fall lower than he was to start with and the gracious nature of God's dealing with him personally and as head of a nation was a wonderful display of mercy). Hence "It is not a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace that has conditions attached."
Mr Sutton is just plain wrong about all covenants being conditional. Again I'd cite the Noahic as an example (Gen 9:11-15).
I Wrote "Abraham will be the father of a great nation who will inherit the land of Canaan and be “as numerous as the stars in the sky”. This covenant does not require or provide that all Abraham’s descendants will be godly, and the subsequent nation may be lost if they do not walk in God’s ways." You respond:
Quote
Again, because Mr. Owen had no understanding of how a covenant works. The covenantal head is the one who keeps the covenant for ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDER HIM. Thus, when Adam sinned, all of his posterity shared in the curse of that sin. Same thing happened with Korah and his family. The corporate covenant between God and His people (aka "Is-rael") is kept by the covenantal head, which in the Jewish nation was the high priest, and now, in the Church, is our Great High Priest, Jesus the Christ. (Heb. 9 - 10). Thus, while the members of the covenantal kingdom may indeed be wicked (and eventually disinherited eternally), the curse of covenant breaking only falls when the covenant head, who acts in behalf of all under him, becomes a wicked leader. This is why the Jewish nation was cast out as God's people -- the high priest had the Son put to death, thus sealing the fate of the whole nation. And this is also why the Church can never fail, because the Head of the Church is in Heaven right now as our Great High Priest Who righteously kept the whole of the covenant terms (the Law of God) and thus established His house forever because of His faithfulness.
It is worth noting that the Abrahamic covenant promise was repeated to Abraham's son and grandson to the extent that God made the covenant with all three. Also note Abraham's treatment of Ishmael at Sarah's behest. Particularly God's words in Gen 21:12. This belies your notion of covenant status being determined by the Covenant Head alone. There is a limited sense in which I can agree with some of what you write here, but the two high priests in Christ's time weren't the first abuse of this office. Is there an element of "Open Theism" in your thinking. Can I ask directly if you think the OT Economy "should " have and could have worked, or whether Redemption by Christ's Atonement was always part of God's original plan for this Creation or was Calvary "second best" somehow?
I wrote: "Deut 28:15 et sec. See repetitions of this national covenant, with conditions, to David, Solomon etc. This typical aspect of the covenant causes paedobaptists confusion because the type is the only “covenant membership” into which children are born. Circumcision is the outward sign of and a teaching reminder of the Faith of Abraham and the Messiah promised from his line. " And you:
Quote
What???? Mr. Owen's writings need to prove a disconnect between the Old and the New Covenant so that while children in the Old Covenant were entered into the covenant by circumcision without any appeal to the exercise of their reason, children of the New Covenant are excluded from the New (and according to scripture "a better covenant speaking of better things") Covenant for no reason other than the idea that they must somehow exercise their reason.
Now this is something Owen does do. And at length. I'll post a link or attachment as I'm able. John Owen on Hebrews 8:6 (modernised) The unmodernised original is attached as an .rtf file
But in short, the key is that the Old Covenant was a picture (comprising physical Israel, promised land, atonement by blood, separated people, priestly intercession, physical circumcision) of the Realities of the New Covenant (including Spiritual Israel - the regenerate, heaven, Calvary, the church, Christ's intercession, circumcision of the heart - baptism of the Holy Spirit). My contention remains that paedobaptist views confound OT types and NT Antitypes.
Quote
Inconsistent.
On the contrary...but perhaps it is such a different model to what you're used to that we haven't made it clear yet. Coming from such a different place our vocabulary will be very very different.
Finally, here is a link to a website diagram of my understanding of the Historic Baptist view of the CovenantsBaptist Covenant Diagram
Yes, we should move on. Your personal opinion of me had nothing to do with anything, but this is a standard problem when discussing this issue with baptists. I leave you to your schism.
This isn’t a topic I had particularly sought to discuss with an orthodox roman catholic but since you have taken the time to write a response I’ll try to answer you.
Hello. And thank you for your response. Actually, I found this forum room while I was doing some link chasing of Preterist sites and authors. Just dropped by to see if there was a good discussion on Preterist Eschatology present here, however, when I saw the thread on the covenant (my favorite subject eclessiologically), I just couldn't resist jumping in the pool! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
To start off, I am not an orthodox Roman Catholic. I am an Orthodox Catholic i.e. aka Greek Catholic. Very very BIG difference, believe me!! And, at least until the Latin Tridentine Mass is returned to the Catholic Church and the Novus Ordo Mess is scrap piled, I don't have much interest in being Roman Catholic.
Secondly, perhaps I need to give you a tad of background. I was in Anabaptist (aka Bob Jones) Fundamentalism for 13 years after I was "saved". From there, I embraced the doctrines of the Reformation as a member of the PCA and spent 12 years there. I have been in the Catholic Faith for only 4 years now.
One thing that might be useful in my contention with paedobaptists is that I would consider their position to be an incomplete reformation of yours (if you’re a good “orthodox roman catholic” that is. ).
I assume therefore you are of the Reformed Baptist persuasion.
There should be a discernible continuum from my views on the Baptist side through theirs to yours. I don’t intend to be hostile or insulting in anything I say so please bear with me.
Au contraire. So far you have been a complete gentleman.
Well, I don't really feel I'm in a quagmire. Particularly not on the issue of baptism and I don't want to divert the thread into other aspects of Roman Catholic Theology if we can help it.
Okay. Perhaps on another thread
You make much of the "legal sounding" terminology we use in discussing covenants. I grant that it is judicial terminology much of it, but it also carries the senses of morality and binding commitment.
Again, covenants do have rules. This is one of Ray Sutton's 5 principles of covenant. He wrote this book as a Protestant. You might feel comfortable reading it to get a better view of the covenant and how it works. He is profoundly much schmarter than I am.
You contrast the judicial model with the matrimonial model, but at root they are the same.
I must disagree. From the very beginning in Genesis, God identifies Himself not as the Great Judge, but as Father(cf Luke 3: 38). He also identifies Himself as King, Judge, Creator, and by many, many other titles. But the appeal we see most often in the NT is the Fatherhood of God. Many of the precepts of the NT are placed in a familial setting, such as, for instance, eternal life being described as "the inheritance." That is a familial term, not a judicial term.
God's perfect justice is as important as His perfect love. He cannot deny either attribute. Have you considered that were it not for the perfect justice of God, sin could simply be ignored and Atonement rendered unnecessary?
Again, I do not see it that way. I would say that the reason sin cannot be ignored is because it is a rupture in love, i.e., the covenantal love between God and mankind. I would say that justice is more in line with God being evenhanded and fair in expressing both His blessing and cursing as people either receiving or ignoring His love
Before I forget OC, I'm afraid those were only my statements and not Dr Owen's. I can post Owen's treatment as an attachment if anyone wants.
Very articulately done. I thought they were Owen's!
We know that marriage is a covenant relationship between husband and wife and the NT makes it clear to us that it also typifies the union of Christ and His Bride, the church. I find your correspondence between the human family and the Trinity highly questionable.
I am still studying it out, but it is one of the main points of covenant theology within the framework of the Catholic Faith.
Was man created in the image of God or was the family.
Remember, the name "Ahw-dahm" (Adam) means MANKIND. Look it up in a Bible dictionary.
I think your plausible analogy here is unbiblical (but then, you never did subscribe to Sola Scriptura...did you?).
Sure I did. And the Catholic Faith places a high importance upon scripture as the foundation of our Faith (which surprised me no little bit when I read that in the Catholic Catechism prior to my conversion!).
Note there are three people in a family only when there is one child. And extended families do distort the picture a bit as well.
WHAT do you mean by "extended families?" And it doesn't matter if there are 12 kids in the family, you still have the same basic structure: covenantal head, helpmeet, offspring. A triad.
Setting that aside for now...what was the great Trinitarian Covenant of Love you allude to? What was its purpose and its ends? Where would you support this idea from in scripture? Now to be fair, the terms Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works that we work with are extra-Biblical terms, but they are rather shortcuts for theological understandings that we consider in themselves to be Biblical -we just need a shorthand to refer to them.
Yes. It is called "exegesis". May I kindly and without rancor point out that when Catholics do the same thing we are accussed of using "extrabiblical tradition". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
When the terms are misunderstood or misapplied, then we have scope for error. But we have just as much scope for error when the theology at the root of our terminology is in error. So I don't get too hung up on whether we need everything to be called a "covenant" if it fulfils all the attributes of a binding agreement and settled purpose on the part of God, whether conditional or not (as in the unconditional (!) Noahic Covenant).
Again I must disagree. There is no such thing as an unconditional covenant. All covenants have "oaths/sanctions" as one of their 5 principles. A contract, on the other hand, is unconditional and binding. But salvation is not a contract.
And you're right, you shouldn't argue with scripture.
Which is why I had to become Catholic! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Did you notice that Adam's son after the fall was created in his (Adam's) image, not God's? (Gen 5:3). That we are no longer born "the children of God"? I'm not going to follow you into RC ecclesiology because we would then be abandoning scripture.
Yes. This is why we need a Savior. We are born carrying that sinful "image of man" within. But in the Orthodox Faith, we reject the notion that there is NOTHING of the image of God left in man as Luther and Calvin posited it. The image is marred -- badly marred -- but it is still there.
Well...the difference would be the federal standing Adam had as head of the human race. His fall took us all down with him. Use whatever terminology you will and you still have to describe the means by which the human race fell. For brevity I would call it the Covenant of Works with Adam because the term is limited to discussion of Adam's rebellious act and its consequences and is understood by most in theological discussions.
But the term "covenant of works" makes it sound like it is a separate covenant from others that came along later. There is only one covenant -- the eternal covenant which exists in the Trinitarian Union. As a created son of God (Luke 3: 38) Adam was created into the covenant of the Blessed Trinity and was subject to all the blessings which obedience would have brought him. Have you ever stopped to wonder what would have happened to Adam had he not sinned? That is a fascinating subject to meditate upon when you consider that Jesus -- the perfect MAN -- is called "the last Adam"
Being part of the familial relationship (remember-- using the word family is but a very poor analogy, as all analogies of God are, of the realationship of the Blessed Trinity) of the Trinity, Adamwsa subject to how a covenant relationship works. This is where "works" come in. What we DO in our bodies is how we show our obedience, love, and faith in God.
How do you account for Adam breaking the relationship for the whole human race?
The principle is called "hierarchy" and the OT is rich in teaching it as a working principle of covenant relationships.
Your comments on the complete absence of human merit for restoration to relation with God we agree on. But, slightly repetitively, how does got justly (in terms of His own perfect Justice) restore us?
This deserves an entire thread of its own. Let me tickle your interest by stating that salvation and eternal life ARE NOT the same thing -- Protestant exegesis teaches that they are, but scripture teaches quite otherwise. I would be glad to discuss this with you, with abundant scripture references of course <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Again, not Owen here, just me.
Sorry again. Your elegance of words puts you in his league
Mr Sutton is just plain wrong about all covenants being conditional. Again I'd cite the Noahic as an example (Gen 9:11-15).
This is why God established a Church with promises to the apostles and those who would continue in their offices that He would guide them into all truth. We see all to many times that a single passage can receive multiple interpretations. Who then is correct and how is that proved?
I read the passage in Genesis 9 and I see something entirely different. God is taking the SOLE SURVIVORS of the Flood and now graciously including them in the eternal covenant. The terms which you consider to make the covenant "unconditional" are to me actually showing how God will administer the covenant from here on out. For instance, in the beginning, the administration of the covenant included no promise that God would not flood the world. Now it does. That is not a change in covenants, nor does it make the covenant "unconditional", it is simply God making clearer the way in which the covenant will work. And as time went by, each generation learned more and more reveal truth about the covenant until the final revelation of covenant came in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is worth noting that the Abrahamic covenant promise was repeated to Abraham's son and grandson to the extent that God made the covenant with all three.
This is the 5th principle of covenant -- called "succession". Covenants pass from generation to generation.
There is a limited sense in which I can agree with some of what you write here, but the two high priests in Christ's time weren't the first abuse of this office.
Ever hear of "the last straw? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Read Matthew 21: 33 - 46 to see what I am talking about here.
Is there an element of "Open Theism" in your thinking.
Never heard of the term. Explain please!
Can I ask directly if you think the OT Economy "should " have and could have worked, or whether Redemption by Christ's Atonement was always part of God's original plan for this Creation or was Calvary "second best" somehow?
Scripture says that the Old Covenant was inferior to the New, therefore, it was about to pass away (as it did in AD 70). The reason that it was inferior was that it placed an external law upon men where the New Covenant brings the One Who IS the Law to live in the heart and change the man from within. It also provides fulfillment of all the Jewish rites pointing to Christ and gives us the Sacraments which are far superior to the ordinances of the OT.
But in short, the key is that the Old Covenant was a picture (comprising physical Israel, promised land, atonement by blood, separated people, priestly intercession, physical circumcision) of the Realities of the New Covenant
Oooooooooo -- you are so close. Look at this:
Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
You see? The whole of the Jewish ritual was a shadow and type of that which is real in Heaven. Since Heaven and God are immutable, then the Christian Faith SHOULD look very, very much like the Jewish Faith, right?
(including Spiritual Israel - the regenerate, heaven, Calvary, the church, Christ's intercession, circumcision of the heart - baptism of the Holy Spirit). My contention remains that paedobaptist views confound OT types and NT Antitypes.
The problem with your eclessiology is that you take the word "spiritual" and make it mean "non physical". That is not the meaning of it. It means that it is indwelt by the Spirit and His action. Take, for instance, the common rejoinder we have to field from Protestants regarding the Eucharist -- that is cannot and is not the REAL Body and Blood of our Christ, the very same that hung from and dripped from the Cross. The appeal is always made to John 6: 66 where our Lord says that His words are "spirit and they are life" Protestants state that this means that what Jesus is saying is not to be taken literally, and then go on to point out that He also says that "the flesh profits nothing" Then they insist that this means that the Eucharist couldn't possibly be true since the "flesh profits nothing"
What they forget, however, is that Jesus DIED IN THE FLESH!! If therefore, the flesh profits nothing, then they are saying in essence that all that He did on the Cross is of no worth -- a thing I doubt they wish to say!!
The true meaning of "spiritual" both in your context and the context of John 6 has to do with the Spirit of God making the Word of God from Jesus lips (and through St. Paul) PROFITABLE to us as opposed to the flesh of man trying to understand spiritual truth without His aid to understanding.
On the contrary...but perhaps it is such a different model to what you're used to that we haven't made it clear yet. Coming from such a different place our vocabulary will be very very different.
As I said earlier, I am well acquainted with the vocabulary. It was the PCA which instilled in me a love for the covenant of God. And eventually, that same study sent me to the Catholic Faith of the Apostles and the Early Fathers.
Finally, here is a link to a website diagram of my understanding of the Historic Baptist view of the CovenantsBaptist Covenant Diagram
Thank you. And thank you for a most civil and welcome discussion on my favorite topic. You, sir, are a gentleman and I appreciate that
On the Contrary, the New Covenant is entered by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. I think you err when you state "must" be a corresponding ritual in the NT as in the OT. See my longer response to you.
Saw it.
Well done.
Now....think about this. There is a serious heresy which the Church has fought since about the 4th century -- Manicheianism (sp?). It is the heresy that the body is somehow evil and worthless but the spirit is good and worthy. It is the anthropology of the Gnostics.
Why did the ordinances of the Old Covenant involve the body? Why not, as "sola fide" seems to suggest, faith alone as supposedly exercised by Abraham and other righteous?
You see, man is a tripartite being -- body, soul, and spirit. All of man has to be redeemed -- not just the spiritual part. Sin has affected all parts of man.
Thus, not only in the Old Covenant, but in the New Covenant as well, the body and the spirit are involved in the making of covenant with God.
Secondly, even faith has a bodily component. "Faith alone" is a complete misnomer, even for you Baptist folk. You expect that when a man has faith in Jesus Christ, he will show that faith by being baptized. That is the body showing the faith which resides within. The only difference is that the Sacraments work "ex opere operato".
And they worked that way in the Old Covenant. The man who was circumcized underwent a real and substantial change in his status. He was no longer a pagan, but a member of the covenant kingdom, and was able to participate in all the ordinances which God gave for the forgiveness of sins and the celebration of the Messiah's prophesied coming.
averagefellar said: Yes, we should move on. Your personal opinion of me had nothing to do with anything, but this is a standard problem when discussing this issue with baptists. I leave you to your schism.
God bless,
william
William, I apologise. What I think of you matters a great deal and I hold you in regard as a brother in Christ. My comments were intended to promote interaction by encouraging you to "open up" in what I hoped would be a constructive thread. Re-reading my post I see now that I overstepped the mark in writing out how I thought you were responding. Again I apologise unreservedly for offending you and ask yor forgiveness.
I fully understand if you have no desire to discuss this topic with me and think no less of you for that.
Thank you for raising the interesting points you did.
Hi OC, I owe you an apology to. Forgive my ignorance of the Orthodox Catholic church as opposed to the Roman. It isn't a church we see much of in Scotland (I have never seen one although suspect it may be represented in one of our cities). I know little of it beyond the most superficial history of the original split with Rome.
Please bear with me as I digest your last post. You raised some very interesting points and from such a different perspective that it takes me time to think through the ramifications. As I said in the first post in this thread, my aim is to try to understand (shorthand -why is everyone else wrong? HaHa!...Joke (honest)), sorry...to understand just where we depart into the covenant theologies we feel so strongly are right. Many seriously earnest and Godly souls hold divergent views and it is difficult to find irenic accounts of the differences.
