In order to properly understand the nature of correct eclessiology, it is necessary to set a firm foundation in scripture. While I realize that the members of this forum will doubtless disagree with my position, I still wish to share what I found out as I studied this issue in examining the ancient apostolic Faith and eventually converting to that Faith.

[color:"0000FF"]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.[/color]

Note that God does not here merely say to Moses "Well, it would be nice if you made things this way." No, indeed. He [color:"FF0000"]admonished[/color] Moses. This word carries the weight of God's serious instruction -- not to be ignored.

And why is this? We see in the beginning of the verse that the worship which Moses was to set out was to be "an example and shadow of heavenly things".

I remember hearing taught as a Protestant that the location in the desert where the Jews were encamped was "down on a plain" where all the neighboring pagan tribes could see what they were doing. God was, in effect, setting up a witness to the nations around the Jews, showing them what the true worship of Heaven was. No wonder Moses was admonished!

An important principle of God's dealing with mankind is that of covenant. The word "covenant" appears over 280 times in the scriptures. As the Bible is studied, God is seen to deal with man by means of covenant relationship. Therefore, it is important to know not only what a covenant is, but how it works.

Again, we have clues in scripture:

[color:"0000FF"]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.[/color]

When Adam was created, God created a son. Using the concept that earthly realities are shadows of heavenly truths, the purpose in creation seems to be that God was creating a communio personarum (communion of persons) which was a picture of the union of love (communio personarum) of the Blessed Trinity.

And what was this intent of this creation? It was that Adam, as the son of God, would mature into full kingship and rule over the Creation which God had created. To this end, he was given a helpmeet. And from their union came forth life -- the children of their union.

Notice that this family is in the form of a triad. All covenantal unions in scripture appear to have this triadic form. For instance, king, queen, subjects. High priest, nation of Israel, believers. Holy Father, Mother Church, believers.

Why is it important that there be only one head over the Church on earth? Because as believers, we are still showing the world the structure and worship of Heaven. In Heaven, we have the family of believers who have by faith been redeemed and are part of the eternal family.

Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15). He is the One Who is fully man, and as a resurrected man, is the King of all creation that Adam could have been had he not sinned. God's plan is not derailed by the Fall. The earthly plan is regenerated, the human race has a new covenantal head, and the family is restored to its original plan. Now we have in Heaven that covenantal family: Jesus the Covenantal Head, the covenantal helpmeet, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the offspring, the believers in Heaven.

This is why there can only be one leader of the Church on earth. The Church is the shadow and type of the heavenly reality - a reality in which there is only ONE divine Head, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church as the shadow of the heavenly must have the same triadic covenantal structure -- covenantal head, helpmeet, offspring. The Holy Father is the covenantal head of the entire church -- the Church is the helpmeet to him in bringing to life believers and nourishing them to grow.

The same form exists in the local parish priest, the parish, and the believers in the parish.

I know you will accuse me of stretching things: so be it. But when I saw that Jesus, the man, is called the Last Adam, I couldn't help but make a connection between Adam and Jesus and ask how this worked itself out in a covenantal format. Once I understood that covenant is seen as union between two, by which their love produces a third, it all fell into place.

I'm sorry this is so short. I'm pressed for time at the holiday season. But I'm sure this will get a lively discussion started, since we do not see eye to eye on the covenant and how it works.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

You have yet to make a case although you do like to pontificate, I suppose its the nature of your beast.

Show me scripture where the ecclesiology of the church was first set up as a triad. Second lets have some context you seem to love to tell us how you have heard this, or that etc. Stick to scripture OC as it is the only source that will be accepted. So prove your case from the text man.

I'm sorry. Guess I didn't make myself real clear.

The paradigm of covenant is union of two which produces a third. It is a triad of communion in love.

Mankind was created in the image of God. That is why God instituted the covenant of the marital union. It is a picture and image of the love union between the members of the Blessed Trinity.

When two are joined, they become one...one flesh. They are no longer two separate beings, but are instead a unit. This is why marriage is supposed to be (in the ideal world before the Fall and sin) indisoluable. And through their union, a third party comes -- the children, who are part of the both. So in the triad which is the family, there is fleshly union between all three members of the covenant. Husband and wife become "one flesh" (according to St. Paul) and then there come others who are indeed made up of both flesh.

And they live in and commune in love as a family.

A picture of the Blessed Trinity.

The Church is just another family. It follows the covenantal norm because God ordained it as a covenantal unit. The OT is filled with references to the covenant. For the kingdom to be covenantal, it must follow the covenantal pattern laid out in scripture. The kingdom of God in Heaven is simply the rulership of the Blessed Trinity over time and space. Therefore, the kingdom of God on earth must follow that same pattern -- three in one, a covenantal union.

Just remember, however, even with this analogy, we are describing the One Who is indescribable. The analogy is given to us, but it is only good to a certain point. The reality of God's love in Blessed Trinity is so far above the analogy that it would blow our feeble minds if we were to see it in reality.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

You'll pardon me if I use a technical term here: Hogwash!

Covenant
a contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Ge 15:1-21; Jer 34:18-19).

This is where you see covenant described between equals there is the Suzerain Treaty which is imposed by a greater upon a a lesser (Ezekial 17:11-14)

In all cases there is no "concept" of a trinity forming a Father/Mother/Son relationship. Point of fact with the Suzerain treaty you see it broke down into:
1. Preamble
2. Names and titles
3. Historical Prologue
4. Stipulations
5. Blessings (If stipulations followed)
6. Curses (if stipulations broken)

These describe the covenant actions between God and his people and his people and other people. I repeat there is nothing in scripture that describes the covenant as you have laid it out.

No problem. That is a fine technical term to use. Have used it myself on a number of occasions! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[quote]Covenant
a contract or agreement between two parties.


That was the definition I learned as a Presbyterian. But marriage, which is the primary analogy by which Christ speaks of His relationship to His people, who are called "His Bride" (Joh 3:29; Re 18:23; 21:2,9; 22:17) is more than a mere contract. There is nothing of the will in volved in a contract, there is nothing of love, emotions, union, and becoming "one flesh" in a contract.

Certainly there are descriptions of political covenants and Suzerainity treaties in the Scriptures, but they are not the primary description of our relationship to Christ as believers. The marrriage is. What Calvinist soteriology has done is to take secondary definition of a covenant and make it the primary definition. Bad form, old chap!

In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Ge 15:1-21; Jer 34:18-19).

And why is that? Because cutting always involves the shedding of blood. Scripture states that the "life of the flesh is in the blood" i.e, there is a giving of "life unto life" in the making of a covenant. Thus, we see that covenant involves more than just a mere contract which can be enacted without the giving of one life to another. Covenant, on its deepest and most profound level, involves the giving of one life to another, the joining of these lives in the union which is "one flesh" as St. Paul describes it. A contract does not do that, in fact, one can make a contract with another, walk away from the table and never have anything to do with that person again. But the blood of covenant means that my life belong to that other person, either as a vassal slave (Suzerainity covenant -- secondary meaning of covenant in scripture) or in the covenant of marriage (primary meaning of covenant).

This is why our blood covenant with God is so profound. We give ourselves to Him completely and without reservation as a bride gives herself to the groom on the wedding night. (Where, incidentally, blood is shed, is it not?)

This is where you see covenant described between equals there is the Suzerain Treaty which is imposed by a greater upon a lesser (Ezekial 17:11-14)

In all cases there is no "concept" of a trinity forming a Father/Mother/Son relationship. Point of fact with the Suzerain treaty you see it broke down into:

The relationship of union between the three persons of the Blessed Trinity is not a Suzerainity treaty. It is the deepest possible union of love between them, perfect union and perfect harmony, of which, as I said before, we as mankind are the image. The marrital analogy works perfectly. Just take some time to sit with a fine glass of wine and reflect upon how this might be true rather than reject it out of hand because it doesn't fit your paradigm.


1. Preamble
2. Names and titles
3. Historical Prologue
4. Stipulations
5. Blessings (If stipulations followed)
6. Curses (if stipulations broken)

These describe the covenant actions between God and his people and his people and other people. I repeat there is nothing in scripture that describes the covenant as you have laid it out.

Interesting list. Where, might I ask, did you get it from? Ray Sutton (have you read his book on covenant) describes 5 principles of covenant:

T = Transcendence (greater makes covenant with lesser)

H = Hierarchy (who's in charge)

E = Ethics (what are the rules)

O = Oaths and Sanctions (all covenants are blood oaths and all have sanctions if you disobey them)

S = Succession. Covenants pass down from generation to generation.


[color:"FF0000"][My personal note: this is why you can "lose your salvation" as it is called. If you enter into the covenantal kingdom and make your oath of baptism (which if you understand covenantal oaths, is saying "if I do not keep this covenant faithfully, may this death become mine") and then fall away (break covenant) you will recieve the eternal death which Christ suffered on the Cross in your stead. That is the sanction for covenant breakers][/color]


By the way, Sutton wrote his book, THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant, as a Presbyterian. If you would like to read it free online you may find it here:

Freebooks from the Institute For Christian Economics

This is a Reconstructionist site. All of them fine Calvinists. I'm sure you would like it! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Take those 5 principles and apply them to marriage. They work. And within the family, there are still principles of oaths/sanctions. I am not suggesting that there is no legality within a marriage, just that it is secondary to the union of love which composes the marriage.[

Oh, one last thing: The analogy of the marital covenant, i.e, husband, wife, and children, is not to say that the Blessed Trinity exists in that framework. Remember, it is an analogy, not an exact picture. But the family is constructed along the same lines as the Blessed Trinity. I know that theologians have referred to the Father as Supreme in a certain sense (please forgive me for not being able to say more about this -- I haven't studied it thoroughly yet, just heard some things in passing), that the Son represents the feminine qualities of the Godhead in that He was RECEPTIVE TO THE WILL OF THE FATHER (I have come to do HIS WILL) as a wife is receptive to the one who is her covenant head in marriage, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The truth is, of course, much more deep than we can understand with the little analogy which God has given to us. But the parallels are there within the analogy and they are striking[

Really!!!

Just contemplate them sometime.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Dear Ed,



I was wondering if you could show proof of this statement in scripture?



This depends on how you are using admonish. It can mean to counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution. Or it can be more of a rebuking of something done wrong. My interpretation of this text leads me to believe that God is just counseling Moses to make sure to set up the temple according to God's command.

Dear Brother,

First, I would like to know if you believe that we ( reformed protestants ) are not covenantal believers? From your recent posts, it seems by your comments that we know nothing of the covenantal concept clearly tought to us in scripture. I'm not sure if you are mistaken in thinking that most of the regulars of this forum are dispensational or if your idea of covenant theology is drastically different from ours. Now with saying this, keep in mind that this topic has not made mention of papal succession. So I will believe that the "Foundation" that you mentioned is not just merely a foundation that is ultimately leading to papal authority. So if this is the case, could you please clarify more on your intent with this post? I believe you are clearly trying to argue a point in our doctrinal differences, but it would be more beneficial to us if you made it clearer where your disagreements lie.

One last note. Please keep in mind Ed that, just in the short time I've been a regular here on the Highway, we have had devout RC's visit us. But this would be like myself going to a RC church trying to share my reformed protestant beliefs. Believe me when I tell you, I am in the process of leaving a liberal presbyterian church because I can't share my reformed beliefs there and they're presbyterian! So there is no way that I would desire to go to a RC forum to try to share my Calvinism with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be negative in any way. This is all strictly out of love. All I'm trying to do, is make you aware of the fact that, your beliefs aren't shared here. So your teachings will most likely be rejected. Which I know you are aware of. But my main concern is that, the few RC brothers we've had visit all seem to eventually leave disgruntled after what usally ends up with a less then loving thread. So all I'm trying to say is, please don't get upset with our convictions. I have a strong feeling that neither yourself or we will be persueded as goes the continual division between our two denominations.

Y.B.I.C. with love,

Dave.

Ok, define "fall away" please?

I don't believe scripture leads us to believe that once we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior that he will let us "fall away."

1 John 2:24-25, Romans 8:30-39, Hebrews 9:11-15, John 6:35-40, John 10:22-30.

They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. The Westminster Confession of Faith.

Of course not. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The scriptures do not always come right out and say things like "The Blessed Virgin Mary is the New Eve of the New Covenant" (which is what the Early Fathers said) No, this is a threme which is taught in concept as you study out the plan of God from Genesis to Revelation.



Actually, when I looked it up on Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the NT, it did carry the weight of being more than just mere counseling. There is a serious weight



No. Far from that. It was as a Presbyterian in the PCA that I first even heard of covenant and learned to love it. My feeling is that the understanding you have of covenant is based primarily on the idea of a legal contract rather than the paradigm of marriage.



Our ideas of covenant theology are quite different in the same way that a contract to buy a house is profoundly different from a marriage. In a contract, you don't even have to have a relationship with the one with whom you are making the contract. It can evn be done by third parties on behalf of the primary parties of the contract.

In a marriage, however, there are great issues of love, union, care for one another, commitment to one another, and most importantly, the "one flesh" union between the two.

I do hope you see the differences.



My apologies. Seems I have done a bit of a hash in trying to state where I see that there is but one head on earth over the Church.

Ray Sutton's 5 point paradigm of the covenant states in point 5 that there is sucession in covenant. This is, for instance, why it was so important to be born the first born of the family, for the first born was the one who would become the covenantal head of the family upon the death of the father. This blessing of sucession was what Esau forfeited to Jacob. Easu was in line to be the covenantal head of the family. But he sold his birthright.

This is how the covenant works in covenantal family structures. The Church on earth is a family. It has a covenantal head we call the Holy Father. Upon his death, another takes seat in the office.



Well, actually I found this forum quite by accident. I was doing some link hopping on the subject of Preterist Eschatology and this link came up. I thought I mind find some Preterest discussions here. When I saw the discussion on the covenant, I just felt I had to jump in. It's my favorite subject.

I am not offended by our differences. I quite expected them, and in fact, I have so far been considerably impressed by the gracious conduct of those who disagree with me. On some other forums, the minute I walked in the ad hominums started. I expect disagreement and even some amount of passion in disagreement.

And just for your information, I was a very passionate and dedicated Calvinist at one time. Sometimes people do convert. But that is not my job. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

Romans 8:12-13 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

Notice that this is said to "brothers". If you live after the flesh, you shall die. If you live after the spirit, you shall live.

1 Corin. 9:27 - 10: 6 1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

To the intent that WE should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.

As a Protestant, the idea was given to me that if a person really could not keep from sinning, then he really was not a believer in truth, but had just made a "head decision" for Jesus. Yet St. Paul shows us that we still have both an old nature and a free will which is capable of following evil, if we so desire to do.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

This is pretty strong also.

2 Corinthians 5:20-6:2 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

I could keep going. There is plenty more to show that one may fall away.

Now, just to confuse things a bit -- I was surprized to find that the Catholic Faith teaches and acknowledges that there is an "elect of God" who will NOT fall away from the Faith, but will be kept faithful unto the end. What we are not allowed to do is to believe that we are personally among the elect unless we receive a personal revelation from God that this is so. This is called the "sin of presuming on the mind of God"

The problem is, again, that Protestantism has defined becoming a believer with being among those who persevere to the end. But entering into the kingdom, making a covenant through baptism, is NOT the same as inheriting eternal life. So it is possibleto reject the covenant relationship and leave the Faith.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

OC you were asked to prove that Mary is the New Eve of the New Covenant... i.e. is there somewhere in scripture where I can justify calling Mary, 'Mother' and look to her as the 'mother of my faith'. You replied:



I would counter that Reformed theology relies heavily upon the 'battle cry' "Sola Scriptura" -- Having said that, if I were asked who was the mother of all who believe in faith I would refer the questioner to Galatians 4:21-31, specifically where Paul says:



It seems to me that the answer would be Sarah, Abrahams wife is the mother of the 'faith filled ones'.

Just my opinion...

OK I need to post a retraction. Yet again. But I suppose its better that I catch it than to be called on the carpet by one of you.

The Greek doesn't have Sarahs name in the text. I foolishly used NLT ( because it read smoother) but was going back today with my father, and reading the greek, and other translations, and I realized how foolish I had been. While Sarah is implied in the text, the verse does not list her name. So for what its worth, here it is, as close as I can translate it from the text.. and once again forgive me. MEA CULPA

Gal 4:24-26

"..this is allegorical, for these are the two covenants: One indeed from Mount Sinai which brings forth slavery, which is Hagar, for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Yerushalayim which now is, and is in slavery with her children. But the Yerushalayimm above is free, which is the mother of us all. "

So I would say-- Sarahs name is implied, but again it still does not mention Mary, or attributing her to be the mother of 'the household of faith'.

OK, I've been bothered about that since after Church-- so I am posting this before my nap ( whihc means its pretty important)... sorry for playing 'fast and loose' with scripture.

OC you don't mind providing for me any urls that explicitly show what your teaching is Roman Catholic Doctrine approved by the magesterium?

OBTW the definition I got for the covenant were on the link I provided for the Suzerain Covenant. As for Ray Sutton I think I'll stick to O. Palmer Robertson thank you or Berkhof or Grudem. Why Recon's might be good Calvinists regarding their soteriology I'm not too impressed concerning their hermeneutics. I think I'll stick with those I know such as Warfield, Sproul, ect.

Hmmmmmmmm.....sorry, can't say I do.

The only thing I do have which puts me on at least some solid ground is the knowledge that what I have discussed is very much along the lines of the teachings of Scott Hahn at Franciscan University of Steubenville. As a professor, and a published author of books on this subject, his work would be under scrutiny for heresy, and as such, has not been condemned.

Sorry I cannot do better than that at this time.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

Ummm, Scott is a devout Roman Catholic. His belief is a works based salvation which puts him at odds with scripture. I am sure he has other issues as well.


God bless,

william

Okay. I could make a statement here, but I would much rather understand where you are coming from.

Could you explain to me what you have heard in his dissertations which shows him to be trusting in his works to save him?

Thank you very much.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed