Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] First covenant

Expand Messages
  • David Reese
    Mr. Jay, Holding to TULIP doesn t make you Reformed , it simply keeps you within basic Orthodoxy. The Reformation didn t invent predestination, as most
    Message 1 of 34 , Feb 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr. Jay,

      Holding to TULIP doesn't make you "Reformed", it simply keeps you within basic Orthodoxy.  The Reformation didn't invent predestination, as most Orthodox Christian theologians were predestinarians throughout church history.

      As for your method of determining the first covenant in Scripture, it is weak.  Do you believe marriage is a covenant, even though when it was first ordained (in Gen 2 as well), the term wasn't used (cf. Prov. 2:16-17; Mal. 2:14)?  Do you believe that God made a covenant with David, even though when He did He did not use the term "covenant" (cf. 2 Sam. 7 w/ Ps. 89, etc.)?

      Also, you seem to not recognize that when we get to the Covenant with Noah in Genesis 6:8, the first use of berith in the Bible, instead of karat berith (lit. “cut or make a covenant”)—which is the normal designation of forming a covenant in the Bible—the Hebrew is actually qum berith (lit. “establish an existing covenant”) which implies that there is an earlier covenant that Noah is now being brought into.  This is all the more impressive when we see that some of the terms of this covenant are a repetition of the Adamic Covenant, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen. 9:1, cf. 1:28).

      Dave Reese

      On Feb 28, 2009, at 4:29 PM, jozinky wrote:


      --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com, "gmw"
      <ragingcalvinist@ ...> wrote:
      > If you do not believe in Covenant Theology, why are you posting to
      > this (Reformed) group?
      > gmw.
      First I myself am "reformed" in that I hold the doctrines of TULIP.

      Second, I didn't know that belief in covenant theology was requirement
      to post.

      Third, if CT is Biblical then those who hold it have nothing to fear.

      Fourth, if it is not then those who hold it might want to reconsider
      and repent.

      James Kirby

    • Brian Mericle
      Thanks Charles. I was not aware of that. I only caught some of this comments and went to the web site someone indicated that was his blog. I can see and do
      Message 34 of 34 , Mar 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Charles. I was not aware of that. I only caught some of this comments and went to the web site someone indicated that was his blog. I can see and do believe that he was wrong but did not realize that he was not even adhering to basic Calvinistic Soteriology although possibly dis pen. I understand with what y'all are saying in other posts now, especially if someone is so far removed form basic orthodoxy, which I did not realize at the time that he thought all Puritan & Reformed thought was wrong. Thank you. Brian


        From: Charles Barden <cbarden@...>
        To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 11:19:32 PM
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: First covenant


        It is my understanding that he subscribes to New Covenant Theology which as you know is anti-nomian. It is also my understanding that he is perhaps Freewill/General/ Arminian Baptist but not sure.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Brian Mericle" <mericle.brian@ yahoo.com>
        To: covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com
        Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 2:13:12 PM (GMT-0500) Auto-Detected
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: First covenant

        I would be interested so as to more fully understand what & how you address these issues effectively although I strongly disagree with his premise and conclusions as they seem very deviant from tradtional orthodoxy as I understand it. The accusations on his web site are incredible and a bit venumois.

        I would recommend keeping a close monitor as he seems very argumentative with fixed ideas without a real willingness to really dialogue & learn. From his website I could not determine what church or denomination he is affliliated.

        Pardon my spelling as i have found the functionaility of the spell checker on my phone.

        Best regards,
        Brian Mericle

        Sent from my iPhone

        On Mar 3, 2009, at 11:43 AM, "gmw" < ragingcalvinist@ verizon.net > wrote:

        If you guys want to debate him, I'll let his posts through for now...

        If you don't, I'll just boot him.

        I'll leave it up to the active membership for now. So, let me know
        yea or nay.

        From the posts I'm holding on to, he wants to take on Larry about
        logic, me about my believing there is such a thing as "the Lord's
        Day," and Edgar about Covenant Theology being a heresy.


        --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com , "Ic Neltococayotl"
        <puritanpresbyteria n@...> wrote:
        > James-
        > For one who seeks to promote truth, why would you not want anyone to
        > find your site? I see a few things on your site that clash with
        > Reformed doctrines.
        > I am sure that CT would not be the only thing you will challenge on
        > forum, if given the opportunity.
        > By the way to call Covenant Theology heresy takes lots of, well,
        guts to
        > state. Heresy is usually set aside for those doctrines that are
        > damnable.
        > You may be a bit sloppy here in your classification bud. For
        example, I
        > believe my Baptist brothers are in ERROR when they deny Infant
        > but I would not say that their position is heretical. They are in
        > but not in heresy.
        > -Edgar
        > --- In covenantedreformati onclub@yahoogrou ps.com , James J
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi;
        > >
        > > gmw wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ben,
        > > >
        > > > Here's what he writes: http://home . paonline.. com/jamesjay/
        > > > < http://home .paonline.com/ jamesjay/ >
        > > >
        > > > I suspect he's here to promote that. But he already has a place
        > > > promote that. So, I asked him why he's posting this stuff here.
        > > > That's all.
        > > >
        > > > gmw.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > .
        > > Could I ask how you found my site please. It's not listed with
        any of
        > > the search engines like Google etc.
        > >
        > > Thanks;
        > > James Kirby
        > >

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.