Apostolic Friends Forum
Tab Menu 1
Go Back   Apostolic Friends Forum > The D.A.'s Office
Facebook

Notices

The D.A.'s Office The views expressed in this forum are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of AFF or the Admin of AFF.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-18-2010, 08:39 AM
DAII DAII is offline
Freedom@apostolicidentity .com


 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,597
The Legalist on Covenant

This might be the uttermost theological nonsense I have read here in a LONG, LONG, LONG time:

Quote:
Well we find baptism as a covenantal application simply because you are accepting the work of Christ and him as Lord of you life in total AT baptism. If you are united with him in baptism that would be a covenant aspect. You are becoming "one" in death. You cannot partake of his blood/death of the new covenant "baptism" and not be in covenant or agreement. It's a legal transaction. If you choose to follow him you negate all else. Thus unification of Christ's work is seen in baptism per Romans 6 etc... Thus you are united with HIM. To be united is agreement. Also Baptism saves thus the work of the cross has brought judicial authority because you have given him the right to respond/act on your behalf by faith and humblness. Grace is given to the humble. Thus you have humbled yourself before him and made him Master/Lord by contract. I will serve you and you alone and by doing so you obtain salvation.

You asked about my statment. She asked about don't we NEED to be baptized again everytime we sin. Well the answer is no. When you come INTO covenant and Christ's authority by his DBR is on your life. You have certain rights. If we confess our sin he is faithful and just to forgive us! Why? Because you are in covenant with him. Which was due to a point in time by which you obtained certain rights. You must be humble though and truly turned from your sin and repentant. God resists the poud. All covenants have conditions. These are basic covenant principles.... Also just as the old covenant there are blessings and cursings....
Biblical covenants, especially the Abrahamic covenant ... or the "new" covenant" ... are not always LEGAL CONTRACTS OR LEGAL TRANSACTIONS ... in the modern sense but binding ...

Once again the legalist forces modern and personal connotations into what is meant ... and ignores biblical context and authorial intent.

I submit the following concerning the biblical concept of "covenant" ... the concept of "berith" is often a binding grant or promise.

Furthermore, if the antitype of baptism is circumcision ... circumcision was a sign of the covenant and not a condition to enter covenant or an application of faith in order to partake ... moreover, it was sign of promise pointing to the birth of a deliverer.

To partake comes through faith, which will subsequently result in obedience, but not contigent on the work of the believer receiving the benefits of this promise or grant but rather the work of the testator ... the fulfillment is not conditioned in reciprocal agreement.

In the eternal Abrahamic covenant ... and the new covenant extended to all, ... we find that a believer is resting, relying, believing, trusting, on the testator on conditions fulfilled by the Work of the Lamb, Christ.


continued below
__________________
VISIT US @ WWW.THE316.COM
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-18-2010, 08:40 AM
DAII DAII is offline
Freedom@apostolicidentity .com


 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,597
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Covenant

(ברית / διαθηκη)

The Greek word διαθηκη (diatheke), usually translated "covenant" in English versions of the Bible, is a legal term denoting a formal and legally binding declaration of benefits to be given by one party to another, with or without conditions attached. In secular contexts it was most often used of a "last will and testament." In the Greek version of the Old Testament this word was used as the ordinary rendering for the Hebrew word ברית.

ברית (berith) is also translated "covenant" in English versions, but, like διαθηκη, it also refers to legal dispositions or pledges which may or may not have the character of an "agreement." Sometimes a ברית is more in the nature of a one-sided promise or grant.
When English readers see the word "covenant" in the Bible, it is important to bear this in mind, because the true sense is often missed if readers suppose that the word must refer to a reciprocal "agreement" or "contract." The issue is important because misunderstandings along this line can have some serious consequences for theology.

This problem of interterpretation has received considerable attention from biblical scholars and theologians. We recommended to students the full discussion of the matter by Geerhardus Vos in his article Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, reproduced on a separate page of this site. Below we also provide some brief comments from the works of Herman Ridderbos and Louis Berkhof.

* * * * *

Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 130-31.

In the Septuagint διαθηκη is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God (berith), rather than the apparently more available word συνθηκη. In this there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that of a one-sided grant. This corrresponds with the covenant-idea in the Old Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to a one-party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored one (cf. Josh. 9:6, 15; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:13). And it is most peculiarly true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-party guarantee. It comes not from man at all, but from God alone. This does not rule out the fact, of course, that it involves religious and ethical obligation, namely that of faith and obedience (Gen. 17:9-10), and that thus the reciprocal element is taken up in the covenant.

Still, such an obligation is not always named, and there is no room to speak at all of a correlation, in the sense that each determines and holds in balance the terms of the other, between the promise of God and the human appropriation of it. It is not the idea of parity, or even that of reciprocity, but that of validity which determines the essence of the covenant-idea. God's covenant with Noah, for example, lays down no stipulations, and it has the character of a one-party guarantee. It does of course require the faith of man, but is in its fulfillment in no respect dependent on the faith, an it is validly in force for all coming generations, believing and unbelieving (cf. Gen. 9:9). And in the making of the covenant with Abraham, too, in Gen. 15, the fulfillment of the law is in symbolical form made to depend wholly upon the divine deed. Abraham is deliberately excluded — he is the astonished spectator (cf. Gen. 15:12, 17). True, in the Sinaitic covenant, the stipulations which God lays down for his people sometimes take the form of actual conditions, so that the realization of the promise is conditioned by them (cf. Lev. 26:15 ff. and Deut. 31:20), but this structural change in the covenant-revelation can be explained in connection with the wider promulgation — it is to extend to the whole nation of Israel — of the covenant, by means of which the covenant-relationship takes on a wider and more external meaning. It comprises not merely the unconditional guarantee of God to those who walk in the faith and obedience of their father Abraham: it also lays down a special bond constituted by the offer of salvation, on the one side, and by responsibility, on the other side, for those who will not appear to manifest a oneness with their spiritual ancestor.

Meanwhile, of course, the fact remains that in all the different dispensations of the covenant of grace, God's unconditional promise to Abraham constitutes its heart and kernel. Consequently, when the "new covenant" (Jer. 31:33) is announced, one thing is expressly made clear: namely, that the disposition which is indispensible for the human reception of the covenant-benefits will itself be granted as the gift of God Himself. In other words, that very thing which in the Sinaitic covenant was so plainly set down as a condition, belongs in the new covenant to the benefits promised by God in the covenant itself. The New Testament concept of διαθηκη lies quite in the line of that development, particularly as Paul thinks of it, as is evident in [Galatians 3 and 4], and in such a place as Rom. 9. That New Testament concept points to a salvation whose benefits are guaranteed by God and as a matter of fact are actually given, because in Christ and through Him the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled.

* * * * *

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 262-3.


http://www.bible-researcher.com/covenant.html
__________________
VISIT US @ WWW.THE316.COM
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-18-2010, 08:43 AM
TheLegalist TheLegalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,451
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

ROFL.... I will deal with this when I have time. Have some meetings today. Thanks for your concern. Spoken like a true Faith Only person!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-19-2010, 10:02 AM
TroubleMaker's Avatar
TroubleMaker TroubleMaker is offline
Why?


 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 210
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegalist View Post
ROFL.... I will deal with this when I have time. Have some meetings today. Thanks for your concern. Spoken like a true Faith Only person!

"Faith only"? Is there something else? Did I miss something?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2010, 10:20 AM
TheLegalist TheLegalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,451
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Quote:
Originally Posted by TroubleMaker View Post
"Faith only"? Is there something else? Did I miss something?
Nice... LOL! Which is exactly my point, context.............
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-18-2010, 10:14 AM
deltaguitar's Avatar
deltaguitar deltaguitar is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Flower Mound, Tx
Posts: 2,791
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

"Faith Only", . . . wow, faith only? I can only shake my head at this.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-18-2010, 10:45 AM
James Griffin's Avatar
James Griffin James Griffin is offline
ultra con (at least here)


 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 1,962
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Daniel for the record I agree with the Legalist's premise as far as the New Covenant being a type of contract.

Very few have a grasp of both theology and law, and I disagree with the author of your article. Of course since he was raised in the Netherlands and his only degree as far as I can tell was in theology, and perhaps they have a different understanding of contract law than American Jurisprudence does.

As for the berith- even in contract law there is such a thing as a unilateral contract.

The old testament was just that, a legally binding agreement between God and man which went into effect at the death of the testator.

The New Covenant- (which I prefer to Testament, because there will be only one death) began with the fulfillment of that "old" testament.

So as far as principle, I would agree with the Legalist.

Now application is a different matter. I cannot see where Romans 6 ties into that per se. A condition precedent? I find that a stretch.

Last edited by James Griffin; 02-18-2010 at 10:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-19-2010, 08:43 AM
TheLegalist TheLegalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,451
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Griffin View Post
Daniel for the record I agree with the Legalist's premise as far as the New Covenant being a type of contract.

Very few have a grasp of both theology and law, and I disagree with the author of your article. Of course since he was raised in the Netherlands and his only degree as far as I can tell was in theology, and perhaps they have a different understanding of contract law than American Jurisprudence does.

As for the berith- even in contract law there is such a thing as a unilateral contract.

The old testament was just that, a legally binding agreement between God and man which went into effect at the death of the testator.

The New Covenant- (which I prefer to Testament, because there will be only one death) began with the fulfillment of that "old" testament.

So as far as principle, I would agree with the Legalist.

Now application is a different matter. I cannot see where Romans 6 ties into that per se. A condition precedent? I find that a stretch.


Baptism is a condition of coming "into" Christ. It is the point at which we are "united" togethor. It is the appointed time. We cannot be IN covenant in the sense of NEW until that time and we are UNITED WITH HIM IN "DEATH" and brought to the newness of life.

WE offer ourselves as the gift. The sacrifical area already has Christ realized but to be untied with his death we are baptized in offering ourselves as a purchasing aspect of salvation. Thus we have repentance a complete turning anc change of mind to serve him and give all. Which is a motion toward baptism and covenant and being united with him.


Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother,
(REPENTANT HEART)

and then come and offer thy gift. (Principle of Baptism as we are the gift offered at the alter of sacrifice to be united with Christ. Without true committment your offering/payment is not sufficient to be united in death(sacrifice) with Christ)

Thus we have..... REPENT and BE BAPTIZED or TURN TO HIM AND AND BE UNITED WITH CHRIST FOR the REMISSION OF SINS!

Last edited by TheLegalist; 02-19-2010 at 09:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-19-2010, 08:32 AM
TheLegalist TheLegalist is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,451
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Quote:
Originally Posted by deltaguitar View Post
"Faith Only", . . . wow, faith only? I can only shake my head at this.
uuhhh Yes and if you understood the many views of faith alone which many include as repentance(with a different context) you would understand why I said what I said. The comments and supporting text are "faith alone" in principle. Whether that is his full belief remains to be seen but what is presented clearly is "faith alone" in a certain context. I believe in faith alone as well but not in the same context. In theological teaching you have a lot of overlap in phrases that are not meant or used the same way. My view is not accepted as "faith alone" by most as they consider it "works" but I believe it is correct within the context.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-19-2010, 08:44 AM
deltaguitar's Avatar
deltaguitar deltaguitar is offline
Registered Member


 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Flower Mound, Tx
Posts: 2,791
Re: The Legalist on Covenant

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLegalist View Post
uuhhh Yes and if you understood the many views of faith alone which many include as repentance(with a different context) you would understand why I said what I said. The comments and supporting text are "faith alone" in principle. Whether that is his full belief remains to be seen but what is presented clearly is "faith alone" in a certain context. I believe in faith alone as well but not in the same context. In theological teaching you have a lot of overlap in phrases that are not meant or used the same way. My view is not accepted as "faith alone" by most as they consider it "works" but I believe it is correct within the context.
Well, I have found out that in many of these discussions that no one will actually define what they believe. If a person truly has faith then everything else will take care of itself.

Our faith, given to us as a gift by God doesn't include repentance but results in repentance. When we are born again of God he starts a work in us that will be finished.

True faith is a belief in the promise that whatever has to be done for my salvation has already be accomplished from the foundation of the world. I believe that if I totally submit my heart and life to God he will keep me and ultimately glorify me.

Any works that I am to accomplish will happen as a result of the grace extended to me by God. Not because I did something within myself.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You Might Be a Legalist when.... Cookin-with-Stoneking Fellowship Hall 138 11-20-2008 01:30 PM
Covenant? Vegas Deep Waters 21 05-04-2007 08:32 PM
A Personal Covenant ReformedDave Fellowship Hall 2 03-04-2007 05:12 PM

 
User Infomation
Your Avatar

Latest Threads
- by jfrog
- by Salome
- by Amanah

Help Support AFF!

Advertisement




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.