Re: Sproul VS Covenant
- Similar garbage was recently posted in Songs of Zion. It appears that
the minions are out beating the bushes.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Benjamin Hart
> OK, well what does Hebrews mean when it says the following?we have heard, lest we drift away. 2 For if the word spoken through
> 2:1-4: Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things
angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience
received a just reward, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a
salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4 God also bearing witness
both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the
Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
>and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the
> 6:4-6: 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened,
Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of
the age to come, 6 *if they fall away, to renew them again to
repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God,
and put Him to an open shame.
>knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
> 10:26-31: 26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery
indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has
rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or
three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will
he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot,
counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common
thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said,
"Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"* *says the Lord. And again, "The
Lord will judge His people."* 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into
the hands of the living God.
> Isn't it consistent Reformed orthodoxy that states that the covenantis made externally with any who take the name of Christ and are
baptised, yet there is the internal aspect of the Covenant of Grace
which is made with the elect, who shall surely not fall away? Perhaps
I didn't read Sproul carefully, but what he was saying seemed
consistent with this.
>him as just loving to publicly bash people and sound like he's the
> A caveat with respect to John Robbins - am I the only one who sees
church-appointed protector of orthodoxy? Who would devote an article
to the question of whether CS Lewis was in hell, and end insinuating
he was? I could go on forever about him and Clark, but I must
restrain myself. Am I the only one whose skin crawls whenever I read
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- "V. Moreover, as we restrict this covenant to the Elect, it is
evident we are speaking of the internal, mystical, and spiritual
communion of the covenant. For salvation itself, and everything
belonging to it, or inseparably connected with it, are promised in
this covenant, all which, none but the Elect can attain to. If, in
other respects, we consider the external economy of the covenant, in
the communion of the word and sacraments, in the profession of the
true faith, in the participation of many gifts, which, though
excellent and illustrious, are yet none of the effects of the
sanctifying Spirit, nor any earnest of future happiness; it cannot be
denied, that, in this respect, many are in covenant, whose names,
notwithstanding, are not in the testament of God." (Witsius, Economy
of the Divine Covenants, bk 3 ch. 1)
>Isn't it consistent Reformed orthodoxy that states that the covenant is made externally with any who take the name of Christ and are baptised, yet there is the internal aspect of the Covenant of Grace which is made with the elect, who shall surely not fall away? Perhaps I didn't read Sproul carefully, but what he was saying seemed consistent with this.
Yes, but at least 2 reformed denominations, and many people as well, have had a hard time grasping it. This is especially true among the Dutch Reformed, because the 3FU do not go into as much detail regarding the doctrine of the covenant as the Westminster Stds.
There are many, like Schilder and the Canadian Reformed Church, who have denied that the Covenant of Grace in its spiritual essence is with the elect alone. They have asserted that all covenants are conditional by their very nature. But this error undermines the Biblical doctrines of grace, which recognize that salvation is of free grace to God’s people.
On the other hand, we must beware the error of those who deny the Covenant of Grace in its visible administration is conditional, as if what we believe and how we live has no relation to our salvation. This tends toward antinomianism. It is an error that Hoeksema and the Protestant Reformed Churches have tended towards. They have denied that there is any sense in which the divine covenant can be conditional. This explains in large measure why the Protestant Reformed Churches have denied the Covenant of Works (with its conditionality), and they have rejected that adultery is just cause for divorce, severing the marriage covenant. Hoeksema wrote: "The marriage bond is absolutely indissoluble. It cannot be broken. No more than the union between Christ and His church can be dissolved, no more can the marriage tie ever be severed. It is a most intimate union of life and for life, which only death can dissolve."
See http://www.rsglh.org/a_history_of_the%20church's%20doctrine%20of%20marriage%20and%20divorce.htm to read the Protestant Refd perspective :
"Convinced by this great theologian that the Word of God does indeed teach marriage as a lifelong, unbreakable bond in reflection of the everlasting covenant of grace, the Protestant Reformed Churches have steadfastly confessed and practiced this doctrine of marriage with its implications for divorce and remarriage to the present day. In doing so, they have broken with a significant aspect of the Reformed tradition. This tradition goes back to the 16th century Reformation itself, having its source in Calvin and Luther. It is a doctrine of marriage that views marriage as a breakable bond. Sinful human actions can dissolve what God has joined together. The sins that can break the bond are fornication and desertion."
- Parnell McCarter
“Perhaps I didn't read Sproul carefully, but what he was saying seemed consistent with this.”
For the record, the February 18th article quoted was taken a tad bit out of context – or at least it seems to me it was.
I have been a regular subscriber to Tabletalk for almost three years now and this past year on Hebrews has been wonderful.
The summation of this day’s devotional says this:
“The Reformed tradition recognizes that the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. God is in control of all things. Human beings are responsible to keep the covenant. In the book of Hebrews, God gives us real warnings so that human responsibility is not invalidated, but rather sustained because the warnings motivate the invisible Church to keep the faith.
“It is a sobering thought that every local church probably has people within it who profess Christ but in reality are from the kingdom. Though we may not know who those people are, we must remain aware that they exist. Pray that all the people in your church may not only profess faith, but also possess it by God’s Grace.”
Lest I type the ENTIRE article (and I can if necessary) the point of this article is that the Covenant is made by God, and broken by man. Men break it over and over, and only God remains true, and only God enables men to remain true, by His Grace in the Faith which He Gifts us.
Maggie – who begins a new year of Tabletalk in James yesterday.
Very beautiful and sobering about those that are in the visible
body but not in the invisible body.
Thank you for posting this!
--- In email@example.com, "Maggie Conley"
> "Perhaps I didn't read Sproul carefully, but what he was sayingseemed
> consistent with this."bit out
> For the record, the February 18th article quoted was taken a tad
> of context - or at least it seems to me it was.years now
> I have been a regular subscriber to Tabletalk for almost three
> and this past year on Hebrews has been wonderful.divine
> The summation of this day's devotional says this:
> "The Reformed tradition recognizes that the Bible teaches both
> sovereignty and human responsibility. God is in control of allthings.
> Human beings are responsible to keep the covenant. In the book ofnot
> Hebrews, God gives us real warnings so that human responsibility is
> invalidated, but rather sustained because the warnings motivate thepeople
> invisible Church to keep the faith.
> "It is a sobering thought that every local church probably has
> within it who profess Christ but in reality are from the kingdom.that
> Though we may not know who those people are, we must remain aware
> they exist. Pray that all the people in your church may not onlyGifts us.
> profess faith, but also possess it by God's Grace."
> Lest I type the ENTIRE article (and I can if necessary) the point of
> this article is that the Covenant is made by God, and broken by man.
> Men break it over and over, and only God remains true, and only God
> enables men to remain true, by His Grace in the Faith which He
> Maggie - who begins a new year of Tabletalk in James yesterday.