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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] First covenant

Expand Messages
  • James J
    Hello Mr Reese; ... . James; Jim; or Mr Kirby is OK. The Jay in my email tag represents my middle initial and James Jay or sometimes Jamesjay is sort of
    Message 1 of 34 , Feb 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Mr Reese;

      David Reese wrote:
      > Mr. Jay,
      James; Jim; or Mr Kirby is OK. The "Jay" in my email tag represents my
      middle initial and James Jay or sometimes Jamesjay is sort of pseudonym.
      > Holding to TULIP doesn't make you "Reformed",
      Well it would of course depend on one's definition of "reformed" which
      is why I place it in quotes.
      > it simply keeps you within basic Orthodoxy.
      Based on the Reformation seeing as TULIP was not around prior to.
      > The Reformation didn't invent predestination, as most Orthodox
      > Christian theologians were predestinarians throughout church history.
      haha true enough! I hope I did not imply that the Reformation -invented-
      > As for your method of determining the first covenant in Scripture, it
      > is weak.
      I don't think so. :-)
      > Do you believe marriage is a covenant,
      Quite so seeing as the Bible refers to it as such.
      > 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)?
      True... and it was used afterwards as in the vss you cite. But there is
      no term usage for Adam!
      > 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.)?
      No. 2Sam 7 speaks nothing of God making a covenant w/David. Rather,
      David himself refers the Lord back to the Mosaic Covenant God made with
      Israel vss22f, of which David was certainly part of that covenant
      himself. This is what Ps 89:3,4 is talking about as well.
      > Also, you seem to not recognize that when we get to the Covenant with
      > Noah in Genesis 6:8,
      6:18. :-)
      > 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—
      Which is absent in your cited passages.
      > the Hebrew is actually /qum berith/ (lit. “establish an existing
      > covenant”)
      There is no Hebrew word for "existing" in the text sir! "And I will
      establish My covenant with you" is a perfectly correct rendering and all
      the translations have it. I know of no translation that inserts the word
      "existing". If there is one then that would comprise a paraphrase not a
      valid translation of the Hebrew.

      > which implies that there is an earlier covenant that Noah is now being
      > brought into.
      Well no I do not believe there is any such valid implication at all. The
      covenant made with Noah was itself original seeing as that was the first
      time God wiped out the entire human race by means of a global flood; and
      the sign of that covenant was the rainbow. No this was truly a "first".
      There was none like it at all before.
      > 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).
      There is no "Adamic Covenant". The instruction to "Be fruitful and
      multiply and fill the earth" is just that... an instruction.

      As I noted; Gen 6:18 is the first use of the word "covenant" and is
      therefore the first covenant in the Bible.

      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.