The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Baptism and Baptist Covenant Theology

To discuss Baptist Covenant Theology, and ultimately baptism (exclusively credo or accepting paedo) it might be worth posting an initial “position paper” for comment and critique and to get the ball rolling.

I hope this can be a constructive thread and ultimately help all views to see more clearly where and why we differ. Terminology will be initially full of pre-(and mis-)conceptions (for which I also apologise in advance) but hopefully we’ll get to a point where positions can be helpfully summarised and differences investigated with more focus.

For the sake of the thread –I’d ask one thing –unless for illustration, please post argument and not links to external works! (eg “You’ll have to read Witsius or the Complete Works of John Owen or John Gill or you’ll never understand”…etc). Discussion Boards have their limits, but they do permit discussion. If someone wants to present a whole alternative position paper then feel free – I expect topics will rise and fall “naturally” during the discussion or spin off to separate threads.

Up front I’m a Reformed Baptist, and my covenant theology is most closely that of John Owen. (yes I know he was pb –but his CT is historical Baptist CT despite his own pb convictions). I don’t subscribe to NCT.

So….We have to start sometime….deep breath…apologies for errors typos and omissions…

An Outline of Historic Baptist Covenant Theology.

1 Beginning in “eternity past”, within the Tri-une Godhead, a purpose, called by some “the Covenant of Redemption” (also called The Counsel of Peace by Louis Berkhof –see Num 37:26) between the First, Second and Third Persons is formed for the Glory of God by redemption of elect fallen sinners. Incidentally think this requires the supralapsarian position as per Robert L. Reymond’s order in “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith”. This may be thought of as a covenant (to work/of work) between the First Person as Father and the Second Person as Son and the third Person as Holy Spirit. This covenant (or purpose or decree - the term is debatable (as per John Murray) but adopted here for brevity) will form the judicial basis for the Covenant of Grace between God and Fallen Man. The purpose of Redemption, as that of all Creation, is to glorify God.

2 God makes an explicit stipulation on Adam (aka The Covenant of Works with Adam -). Adam breaches God’s Word and so breaks the terms of the Covenant of Works. The Creation is cursed as a result of Adam’s Fall. Note that no man was ever personally “saved” by the terms of God’s Covenant of Works. Within God’s pronouncement of sentence following Adam’s breach, the provision of a means of Redemption (The Covenant of Grace) is intimated as the Protoevengelium (Gen3.15). This Promise of a God-given means of Redemption is the way in which the Redemptive “Covenant of Grace” will function in throughout the OT. In the NT the prophesied Redeemer, God incarnate as the Lord Jesus Christ, will fulfil the Promise and legally realise the New Covenant in His blood.

3 Adam’s multiply under the terms of the Promise of the Covenant of Grace ie with hope there will be a Redeemer. Those who depend on a righteousness from God other than their own are “the godly” – the others, “ungodly”. The Covenant of Grace is spiritually understood and not carnal. The ungodly multiply quickly and God intervenes with the Great Flood.

4 The Noahic Covenant is a covenant of earthly security in force only until the end of the world. Both the godly and the ungodly may be said to benefit from the common grace inherent in this covenant. Following from Noah (perhaps starting with Ham) ungodliness re-establishes its presence.

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. 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. It is not a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace that has conditions attached. 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. 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.

6 The anti-typical aspect of the covenant made with Abraham is spiritual and eternal, and a) not all of Abraham’s physical descendants will enter into it and b) not all who enter into it will be Abraham’s physical descendants. Spiritual Israel will be the covenant destination of Abraham’s spiritual children (all the regenerate, pre-Jewish, Jewish and Gentile). No-one is actually born into this spiritual covenant. This is the “real” or antitypical covenant of grace with Abraham and it is The Covenant of Grace with mankind. “National” Jews may of course become regenerate and so enter “Spiritual Israel”.

In addition to the typical Covenant with Abraham and his seed specifically, The antitypical aspects of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace with mankind apply to all mankind so there are gentile regenerate men on earth. (Melchisedec, etc).

All men (save Christ incarnate) are born unregenerate so gentile ungodly and unregenerate National Jews have the same (lost) “status” until personally redeemed.

7 At Sinai three (at least!) distinct “applications” of the commandments and ceremonial laws can be traced.
A) The typical conditional national covenant of works for the Jewish nation state. (Deu 28:15-68 , Hos 1-3).
B) The (unachievable) “covenant of works” for the education of the ungodly. No-one (Christ alone excepted) ever kept the Ten Commandments (The law as schoolmaster Ex 19.6, Gal 3.24)
C) The Rule of Life for believers depending on God’s Grace (Gal 3.25).

8 During David and Solomon’s reigns both the typical-national-conditional and the spiritual- eternal-anti-typical aspects of the covenant of grace made with Abraham are repeated. David’s kingship is increasingly employed in typical Messianic prophetic statements. No “new” covenants are formed.

9 The typical national covenant is formally renewed in Josiah (8:30-34; 24:1-28 and 2Kings 23:1-3)

10 At some point, (586 BC?) the conditional nature of the national covenant is realised and the negative side of the national covenant invoked. The “national covenant curses”(Deut 28:15-68) supersede the national covenant blessings and the nation of Israel begins to be lost (gradually loses nationhood). From this point on, the national covenant is negatively applied but retains its value as a type, a prophetic picture of the spiritual reality of God’s chosen people. Even the negative aspect has its spiritual antitype in the “spiritually lost” of the reprobate, both Jewish and gentile.

11 At the incarnation of Christ the typical and almost all of the prophetic function of the national covenant is fulfilled. (Gal 3.16). [I think most agree that prophecy allows of multiple fulfilment, although in a single sense each time] All the Messianic prophecies are realised. Jesus Christ, as God-Man-Redeemer:
a) fulfils the work terms of the Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son
b) fulfils the Covenant of Works between God and Man breached by Adam,
c) keeps the entire Sinaitic Law.
d) fulfils the typical Davidic Kingdom prophecies.

12 I take it as a principle of interpretation that since the Lord came there are no more “types”. Types were an OT teaching tool (Hebrews 6.1, 8:5 & 10.1). Christianity is now clear light. Christian baptism, for example, is not a type of anything. Types differ fundamentally from illustrations, parables, prophecies, metaphors etc.

With Christ the division between Jew and Gentile is removed to leave the mankind as one family to remember the historically typical teaching of a chosen people. There is an elect of God. The church is the antitype of the chosen people. (Gal 3.7, Rom 8:2-4). Beware the false conclusion that since not all Israel were of Israel in the type (ie not all OT Jews were regenerate), the same should be true in the antitype (ie the church). While there was an OT salvation reality let’s set it aside just for a few moments. The OT picture, the type, was of a people set apart to God - in the NT this is now a reality in the church, everyone else being unregenerate and therefore not eligible to be part of the church. The OT saints (to bring them back) were saved by the method of the antitype and not of the type.

The Gospel of Grace now explicitly and unambiguously proclaims The Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works is formally revoked, having been fulfilled by Christ alone. No typical national covenant remains as the Church, its antitype, has arrived. No man is now born into a typical covenant. No man is born into a positive covenant status. TE Watson’s chapter contra Vos in “Should Babies be Baptised” is useful here.

As John Owen described, The New Covenant is New in that it is realised and established with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this same redemptive transaction had saving efficacy from the first as the great Promise revealed by the Holy Spirit to all who would be redeemed by it, both during and before the Old Covenant.

13 The unregenerate children of believers and unregenerate churchgoers (not to say members… which sadly do occur due to human fallibility and sinfulness) are under precisely the same covenant standing as unbelievers. This is the argument against paedobaptism and covenant membership of infants: Baptists hold that paedobaptism erroneously harks back to the Jewish (Abrahamic) typical national covenant only. The special covenantal status paedobaptists want to have for those solely in the visible church (not members of the regenerate invisible church ) is seen as spurious and a misapplication of OT typology.

So…..by way of Conclusions:

1 There was only one Covenant of Works for Salvation between God and Man, made with Adam as his probation which he failed..
2 The need for the Covenant of Grace arises from God’s eternal purpose and Man’s (Adam’s) breach of the Covenant of Works
3 There is only one salvific Covenant of Grace between God and Man all the way through from the protevangelium…Men are saved by trusting only in the Atonement and Righteousness provided by God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 The judicial basis for the Covenant of Grace is Atonement and Righteousness provided by Christ’s fulfilment of the Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son in eternity past.
5 Christ in fulfilling the Covenant of Redemption (the covenant between the God the Father and the Son) fulfilled the terms of the Adamic Covenant of Works and all the types in the Law delivered at Sinai and provided the judicial justification for the Covenant of Grace toward Man.
6 Abraham was given and understood the Covenant of Grace as Salvation by Christ’s atonement alone as the spiritual, eternal and antitypical truth of the national and “land” covenants of Genesis (Heb:11-10).
Circumcision was a badge of separation from the world and membership of the typical covenant. It was the teaching reminder of the faith Abraham had and that the Promised Messiah would be from the nation sprung from Abraham. Real membership of the Covenant of Grace in the OT was “circumcision of the heart” (no physical sign).
7 NT Baptism is not a continuation of Circumcision, but a new ordinance for believers. It is neither the sign nor the seal of the New Covenant. The seal of the New Covenant is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Eph1:13, 4:30).

Thanks for the post. Since it is fairly lengthy I will respond to a single point at a time. I'll start with the final conclusion. Here are some other threads where this has been discussed fairly recently, Visible/Invisible Church, Some covenant understandings, Covenant Continuity, and argument from languages for family inclusion, OIKOS, a dilemma of exclusion, command to exclude children?, and a thread that was closed but a good question, Who Departed.


I take issue with believers baptism. Since we cannot guarantee only true believers are baptized, I prefer professors baptism. How does the baptist overcome this?


This begs another question, Credible Profession?.


God bless,

william

First, I'd like to say that some Reformed Baptists will conclude that baptism replaces circumcision, and yet they remain credobaptist. For example, see David Kingdon's The Children of Abraham amd Paul K. Jewett's Infant Baptistsm and the Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, Will, I would not use the argument that, since we cannot infallibly baptize disciples alone, that that negates the purpose. It's like saying that we should not fence the Lord's Table at all because when we say it's for believers only, there may be nonbelievers partaking of it.

Simply claiming an equality with the Lords Table isn't enough. I believe scripture teaches baptism for all professors and their families, and fencing the table to only professors. Could you show otherwise? Or could you show how scripture equivocates the two sacraments?

Second, I do not use the argument, as some have stated, to claim we should not fence baptism. We should, but by Biblical standards. My argument is stated here, Visible/Invisible. I have never claimed we should baptize the entire world. Scripture upholds professors baptism as well as their families. We cannot make baptism fit the elect alone. Scripture does not offer this by way of example.

There is no "may be". Scripture gives examples of both members of Israel and member of the visible church receiving the sign and not being elect. This gives way to another question, Credible profession.

Allow me to state once again, we should not baptize the children of unbelievers. I am simply making the point that believers baptism is an untrue label, and the Baptist Confession upholds my view.


God bless,

william

William,

I think you have made a valid point here. The caveat for the "typical" Baptist is that they will argue from this point, i.e., only "believers" are to be baptized and thus infants are of necessity excluded. For those that want to use this type of reasoning, THEN your counter-argument is a valid one; i.e., there is no infallibly method for discerning true faith in those which profess such. So, although the argument is a limited one, I do think it is legitimate, if for no other reason than to show the incongruity of holding to the terminology of "beleiver's baptism". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Will,
Unless we are double minded, we profess what we believe. Taken seriously the credible profession is just that... it is a profession of belief and it is credible. Credible to whom? Mature spirit-filled believers who constitute the local church leadership usually.
What renders it credible? Well, we could go to lots of places but 1st John provides signs of conversion. In a local church setting this is a much more reliable system than might appear. It is amenable to investigation and to assessment and it is not normally "rushed". Frequently a candidate will instigate the request for baptism when his own understanding is led to it. With Christian charity and prayer it is not as unreliable as some might think.

Regards,
Dan

While I am not going to disagree entirely with your premise I'd like to point out that I have no infallible method for determining that you exist, nor that any other consciousness than my own exists.

However, proceeding on "common sense" and Christian charity leads me both to dialogue with you, and accepting a credible profession of faith from a fellow believer.

D.

Due to what has transpired in the past on this Board with discussion concerning "Paedobaptism vs. Credobaptism" I am compelled to give this sober warning. This discussion will be CLOSELY monitored. Although there will be some allowance for passion to be expressed, what will NOT be allowed is flaming, name-calling, going off-topic, schism (either public or private) or anything else "I" deem worthy of disciplinary intervention. Any and all individuals who it is deemed in violation of these simple, albeit open guidelines, will be given a private warning. If after a warning is given, such individual(s) persist in their unacceptable behaviour, they will be banned permanently from this Board.

If you find the above unacceptable then I would suggest you do not get involved in this particular discussion.

Is a sign for the elect alone or is it a sign grounded in a profession? The two are not symonymous.

Or shall we concede that you uphold professors baptism, of which, the elect are included but not solely?


God bless,

william

Actually - is sign the right word? I see an ordinance that has a meaning and a right application. The right application is to believers. Any unbelievers who are baptised, are not baptised into the name of the Father the Son and the Holy spirit, are they?

More constructively perhaps...and this was the reason for my looooong first post...what is Baptism? If we're going to discuss it...what is it?

I didn't think we'd go right here straight away which was why I had thought the BCT summary might have taken some critique first.

Could you provide a command stating that baptism is for professors alone? What about all those OIKOS baptisms? I'm not buying that only believers are baptised.


God bless,

william

William,
Thanks for your question:
“Could you provide a command stating that baptism is for professors alone? What about all those OIKOS baptisms? I'm not buying that only believers are baptised.”

It’s a fair challenge. And I don’t want to fall into the trap of superficially scanning scripture for ammunition for “my side” of the discussion nor encourage others to do so. I would drop my Baptist understanding in a hot minute for a better one. But so far it’s the best I’ve got so I’ll show how I would address your question.

The reason I “hesitated” and asked what baptism was ( in my last post) is a large part of my thinking on the full response. I’m working through Greg Strawbridge’s Defence of Infant Baptism and while I’m grateful he has set out his reasoning and bases so graciously and succinctly, I am seeing where I would differ and where I think his reasoning is flawed. There are no radical new insights unfortunately (actually…fortunately) but rather the root differences concern the accurate determination, tracking and application of type and antitype between the OT and the NT. Baptists would maintain that paedobaptists (and mostly presbyterians) carry too much that was intended to be ‘merely’ typical of the church, literally into the NT church.
There is a very succinct and useful summary of this in the Appendices included in James Haldane’s Commentary on Galatians. Haldane was a Scottish presbyterian minister who changed his views and as such is educational to both sides (just as Dr Strawbridge is).

Is there a command for baptism for professors alone?
Straighforwardly, yes. Mark 16:15-16.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Note also that theWCoF implicitly regards baptism as a sign “not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also,” of “his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” Explicitly this requires understanding and belief prior to baptism.
West. Conf., chap. 28, Sect. 1

The Oikos baptisms are very interesting. But if you depart from the Baptist understanding of them (that there were no infants in these households –a fact rendered plausible by the demography of the households) you may find yourself trying to prove too much. Are unbelievers to be baptised on the authority of the head of the house? Or do we conclude that everyone baptised in these households was given by the Holy Ghost to understand the Gospel and believe.

Even if we list the household baptisms exhaustively, two explicitly qualify that the baptism was on understanding and belief.

Cornelius (Acts 11:14)” and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved , you and all your household.”

Lydia (Acts 16:15)

The Phillipian Jailor (Acts 16:33)

Crispus (Acts 18:8) “And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard [u][/u]were believing and being baptized.”

Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16)
I believe that unless we really are going to depart from Sola Scriptura or (equally unbiblically but with at least “logical”consistency ) baptise unbelieving relatives and servants, no case for infant baptism (explicitly or inferrentially) can be made from the household baptisms.


I still think it useful to discuss precisely what Baptism is. Ironically, Baptists probably have the “lowest” view of Baptism of any theological grouping. I don’t mean that irreverantly but rather technically in view of its place, purpose and effects.
Best Regards,
Dan

I'm sorry but I don't believe in believers baptism. I hold to professors baptism. Until we can agree on this point, we have no reason to move forward.


God bless,

william

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.

To properly baptize, you must properly understand the nature of what a covenant is. It is not, as those of the Reformed persuasion insist A CONTRACT! This view comes from the legal and court room understanding that is predominant among all Reformers. They simply do not have the Biblical view of covenant:

Ezekiel 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Please note what is happening here. Union is happening. Two are becoming one. Marriage is taking place. This is the Biblical description and this is far far from the legal understanding in which Reformers describe a contract.

Let's tear apart Mr. Owen's statements:

Just a question. Is it your opinion that N.T Wright and E.P. Saunders have the "correct" view of Paul and his justification language?

Fred

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.

Thanks

Brother Ed

OrthodoxCatholic
You wouldn't also hold to the views of Anne Catherine Emeriche (Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ') would you?

Tom

Have read nothing by her at all.

No -- I hold to the Biblical view of the covenant <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

But thanks for asking.

Brother Ed

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.

Thank you.

Brother Ed

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.

QED

Regards,
Dan

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..........emphasis mine.

That's a part of the OIKOS Formula by Lee Irons I believe. It can be read entirely here, https://www.the-highway.com/forum/showthr...amp;o=&vc=1.



God bless,

william

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.

Regards,
Dan

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.
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.

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: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: 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 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: 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: 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.
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

Regards,
Dan

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

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.

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

Warmest regards in Christ,

Brother Ed

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.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

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.

Best Regards,
Dan

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.

Best Regards,
Dan

First off, welcome to The Highway Discussion Board.

I can't help but think that I am not understanding what you are setting for here, for if what I seem to be understanding is correct, then your view is woefully off the mark. Let me preface my brief remarks by saying that although most of that which you replied to in regard to Ddaann's post of which you assumed was written by John Owen but now realize it wasn't, your disparaging remarks were without warrant and less than amiable. For the record, if anyone here had half the biblical knowledge of John Owen, doubtless they would be far more knowledgeable than perhaps they think they are.

Now, I guess what I'm needing is some clarification of this part of your statement: ". . . the curse of covenant breaking only falls when the covenant head, who acts in behalf of all under him, becomes a wicked leader." What is bothering me is that you first mention Adam, he being the covenant head of the human race, who by virtue of his transgression, are sharers in the curse put upon him. To this I can give full assent, i.e., that Adam, having been appointed by God as the Federal Head of the human race and upon the principle of corporate solidarity, whatever actions he took had a direct effect upon all his posterity. (Rom 5:12-18; 1Cor 15:21, 22) However, I am under the impression that you hold that as Adam was the Federal Head of the human race, you also hold that the Lord Christ is likewise the Federal Head of the human race, i.e., all men without discrimination; every man, woman and child who ever was, are and ever shall be. And it is because of their being in covenant with Christ, that they can be brought to judgment for breaking this covenant relationship when they do not unite themselves to Him with not only a living faith, but also with works which are the fruit of that faith; i.e., obedience to the stipulations of the covenant. Would this be an accurate summary of your position?

In His Grace,

I beg to differ with you on this point (highlighted), that we are ALL created "children of God". For the biblical teaching is that men become the children of God when they are reconciled to God in Christ by faith. It is only then that they become children (Lk 3:8; Jh 1:12, 13; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; 1Jh 3:1; cp. Hos 1:10; ) and thus heirs of God (Gal 3:29; 4:22-31; Rom 9:7, 8; Heb 2:10). Before one is brought by grace through faith unto Christ, all men's father is the Devil. (Matt 13:38; Jh 6:44; Acts 13:10; 1Jh 3:8-10). The Liberals of the last century also foisted this error, to their shame.

In His Grace,

Hi OC,
Before our posts get overly long I thought we'd better start taking smaller bites rather than risk death by word count. In this one I mainly want to clarify the initial Covenant status you describe at Creation and post-fall.

OC wrote I must disagree too. But perhaps not very strongly over this matter. More of an emphasis really. The words "legal" and "judicial" conjure cold severe objective connotations when really we are speaking of the Self -determined "justness" of Almighty God who is accountable to no-one. And you are right, "From the beginning" God is principally revealed as the Creator and yes, in that,as the ultimate Father.
But, (my point) when Adam falls, there is a shift to God's dealing with man as fallen in Adam and in need of redemption (an act of love and mercy predicated by justice). The human race is therefore lost, "almost from the beginning". Now the remedial and judicial aspects of the relationship come to the fore as God provides a perfect way of Redemption that will save some fallen men (careful wording so we don't stray off topic!). Since man is the guilty party, having lost his unfallen sonship status, attention is now rightly directed to God as Merciful Judge and ultimately as Redeemer.
Interestingly, just at this point, immediately post-fall, how would you describe man's covenantal status? (Let's say from Gen 3:15 on...for clarity). Has Adam broken covenant, or not? If not, which covenant is he under?

Regads,
Dan

OrthodoxCatholic

I will let Dan answer your post, but I would like to get clarification on something you said.

Dan said:
To which you responded:


When you said If I remember correctly you used to be a Baptist, correct? If that is the case are you referring to back when you were a Baptist you believed in Sola Scriptura?
The rest of what you said, if I understand you is not the same as Sola Scriptura. For if I understand the Orthodox side of Catholicism, you would believe basically the same as Roman Catholics would, i.e. Scripture and Orthodox Catholic tradition are on par.

Tom

I accepted the idea of "sola scriptura" as a PCA Presbyterian.

Holy Tradition is on a par with scripture because it is founded in the proper understanding of scripture. In other words, the tradition that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of the Lord is a Holy Tradition of the Church which comes from the proper understanding of John 6.

I have only seen two kinds of tradition in the Church: that which is Holy Tradition and comes from a foundation in scripture, and that which is administrative, or cultural tradition, and comes from the particular ethnic and cultural pratices which developed over the ages.

An example of the second would be the difference between the East and West in the elements used in the Eucharist. Same understanding, but different kinds of bread used.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

I owe you an apology to. Forgive my ignorance of the Orthodox Catholic church as opposed to the Roman.

No apology needed. The Orthodox Catholic Church (aka Byzantine Catholic, Greek Catholic, or Eastern Catholic Church) is very predominant in the middle of Europe, especially in the Slovak countries such as the Ukraine. I didn't even know about them until a friend of mine suggested I go visit their Liturgy.

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).

More's the shame, laddie! It is a beautiful and reverent worship experience. You just haven't ever HEARD the Psalms until you chant them accappella! The hymnology of the OC goes back to the 6th century, along with large parts of the Liturgy.

I know little of it beyond the most superficial history of the original split with Rome.

After the lamentable schism of 1054, the Eastern Orthodox continued on their way for another 300+ years outside of union with Rome. However, in the 14th(? -- I'm a bit shaky on the dates) century, the churches in central Europe were united back to the headship of the Roman Pontiff at the Union of Brest and the Union of Usurhod.

Traditional Eastern Orthodox churches call us "uniates" (which is the equivalent of calling a black man the "n" word) and spit when they talk about us.

No kidding.

We are considered traitors to the Orthodox Faith because we recognize that the Pope is the Head of the Church on earth.

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.

I had never heard of some of these ideas either until I began my serious study of Catholic theology (putting aside my intense hatred for Catholicism in general). Ray Sutton has a very good book on the Internet. The web site allows you to read it for free. It is a Reformed website, so you won't get corrupted <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Sutton's book can be read here:

THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- Dominion by Covenant

It was written when he was a Presbyterian minister (He is now an Anglican bishop in the R.E. Church here in America).

While he lays a very good operational foundation in covenantal principle, I would disagree with the overall theme of the book which is based not on the familial covenant of the Bible, but on the Suzerainity covenants of the Middle East in the days of the patriarchs.

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.

[b]Oh my. It has, so far at least, been like a breath of fresh air in here compared to some sites where I visited briefly. Rather than engaging in substantive discussion, all I heard were ad hominums, perjoratives, yards of polemics, and very little exegesis of any sort. Sadly, many sites in the States manned by Fundamentalists have this sort of approach to anything they disagree with, not just Catholicism.

Best regards.

May God richly bless you,

Brother Ed