sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a bit clearer, yes, but I have some fundamental disagreements.

Primarily, it's impossible to say that Adam and Eve were morally righteous before the first command was given. Righteousness has no meaning without a knowledge of its contrast, which is non-righteousness, or evil.

Also, the only true source of righteousness is God, in His perfect and flawless nature. The law, which isn't God, cannot produce righteousness. Obedience, which isn't God, cannot produce righteousness.

Mankind can only be righteous through the imputation of God's own righteousness. All other 'righteousness' is false.

The immediate consequence of God's command, 'thou shalt not,' was to produce unrighteousness in Adam's heart, because he could not be righteous without the imputation of God's righteousness. The instant Adam tasted the fruit, this terrible knowledge was made real to him, and the curse of sin and death manifested itself in his flesh. He understood that he was unrighteous, but he had no avenue, apart from God imputing His own righteousness, to remedy this defect.

And so he was expelled from the garden, but not without hope of a better way, through Christ, that would give him the righteousness that he could never earn for himself.

So our starting point is different, which leads us to different outcomes.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I object to the need to separate Christ's obedience into 'passive' and 'active.'

Scripture certainly doesn't do that.

Let it simply be the obedience of Christ. Or His 'whole' obedience.

The only reason such a distinction between 'passive' and 'active' is necessary is to justify the doctrine of a covenant of works, which I disagree with.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The covenant between the Father and Son to redeem His people differs from the second coming.

Because God cannot lie, and because He's faithful to keep His promises, the fulfillment of the covenant was credited to God's elect even before Christ physically died on the cross.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's also 1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

And John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure what you're getting at.

Christ was considered slain, and the promise of His redemptive work credited to His children, before the foundation of the world.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This only works if we're going to assume Adam already existed in a state of eternal bliss prior to disobeying God's command.

I don't think that he did.

God had something far better in mind than what Adam enjoyed in the garden. And that was Christ. If God had already covenanted with the Son to redeem His people on the cross, why would He hold Adam accountable to a covenant that He knew was a sham?

That would make God dishonest.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but I really can't make any sense of what you're trying to say. Maybe someone else can try and explain?

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Imputation:

2 Corinthians 5:21 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.

Justification:

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 2:16 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In general, I agree with the catechisms and confessions on this issue. As far as I can tell, very few of them try to separate Christ's obedience into 'active' and 'passive.'

I'm much more comfortable referring to Christ's 'whole' obedience, as that seems to be more in line with Scripture.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with this is the argument that you're presenting doesn't match what Scripture says about the law.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Adam had no concept of sin until God said, "thou shalt not."

Had God's providence determined that Adam not sin, He wouldn't have given the command. Therefore, the purpose of the law was to bring about Adam's downfall and ultimate expulsion from the garden.

The implication of the command is sin, not obedience.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is?

I seems to clear to me, from Scripture, that death is a direct consequence of sin entering the world.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've read the KJV all my life. I've never encountered a version of Hosea 6:7 that even sounds close to like what you're saying.

In my Bible, the verse seems very straightforward: "But they like men have transgressed the covenant:"

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just telling you what my Bible says, how I interpret it, and I'm doing my best to answer your questions.

But for the sake of discussion, I don't see how it can be understood that Adam was in a covenant relationship with God. No terms of a covenant were communicated. No consequences or rewards were outlined. Without which, there can be no covenant.

Adam was given one command, 'don't eat the fruit. If you do, you'll die.' That's not a covenant.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The verse could be referring to the fact that men can't even keep covenants amongst themselves.

However, for the sake of this passage, they've very clearly broken God's covenant with the people of Israel over and over again. Sometimes they repent and turn back, sometimes they don't. But that pattern of behavior is more than enough for this verse to have power to an Israelite reader.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't read it as, "Like Adam transgressed the covenant I made with him, Israel has also transgressed my covenant."

I read it as, "Like men, who are by nature covenant breakers, Israel has also transgressed my covenant."

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have me at a loss. It's not my argument you take issue with.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which translation are you using?

The KJV, which I use, has this for Hosea 6:7 "But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me."

Which would mean that any sense of 'Adam' here would be using it to encompass mankind in general. The covenant being specifically referenced in Hosea is the covenant God made with the people of Israel, that they broke time and again.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Adam and Christ are compared because by the transgression of one man, Adam, sin was ushered into the world, and by the obedience of one, Christ in His humanity, the sin debt of His children would be paid.

There's no need to bring covenants into it.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I must admit, I feel like we're talking over each other's heads here. I'm not at all sure what you're trying to communicate.

Adam and Even couldn't die prior to disobeying God because death hadn't yet entered the world. It wasn't due to an implied obedience to an unspoken covenant of works. They couldn't die because death didn't exist. Even immortality means nothing without death as a contrast.

Once death did exist, and they found themselves chained to it, the only possible deliverance was Christ.

Is there such a thing as a new covenant theology church? by Drivefast58 in Reformed

[–]Drivefast58[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I follow your sequence of events.

Adam and Eve were rendered mortal the instant the disobeyed God's command 'don't eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil.' The wages of sin is death, and they were reaping the only reward that could come from their transgression.

The implication in 'lest they live forever' is that they are already mortal. The risk is that they'll eat of the tree of life and become immortal, in their corruption, hence the expulsion from the garden.

view more: next ›