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

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