http://www.christinyou.net/pages/dthcthchth.html
interesting article i stumbled across by a James A. Fowler which sounds very much like NCT but is not. please read and share your comments.
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/dthcthchth.html
interesting article i stumbled across by a James A. Fowler which sounds very much like NCT but is not. please read and share your comments.
When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
--Erasmus
A room without books is a body without soul.
--Cicero
The big problem with this paper standing behind all the other errors in it is the belief that God's covenant is conditional. This is the error also behind much of covenant theology today. The author of the article is also very unclear as to what is meant by diversity. In dutch reformed theology for quite some time the organic unity of the covenant has been spoken of. An organism is something with a single essence but a diversity of parts. The author would have to be more specific, but I see nothing as far as diversity goes that would disagree with CT.
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
perhaps you could elaborate here. is there a specific quote you're thinking about, etc? and perhaps we could discuss some of the "other errors" specifically.Originally Posted by wildboar
When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
--Erasmus
A room without books is a body without soul.
--Cicero
Sola Gratia,Theological discorrespondence is also evident in such discontinuity. Though God's covenantal dealings with man are always "conditional" since God created man with a freedom of choice to respond to God in personal relationship, rather than mechanical manipulation, the theological realities referred to in those differing covenants are not always equivalent. God must not be stereotyped into exact and identical activity. The character of god's graciousness and favor is expressed in the Old Testament by the Hebrew word hen, but "grace was realized in Jesus Christ" (John 1:17) in the new covenant. Old Testament believers believed and trusted in God, but they "died in faith, not receiving the promises" (Heb. 11:13,39), whereas Christians "receive" Christ (John 1:12), the Spirit (Gal. 3:2) by receptive faith. The continuity and correspondence is also explained since we become "Abraham's offspring" by such faith (Rom. 4:12-17; Gal. 3:8). The Jewish peoples were "saved" from circumstances in physical deliverance (I Peter 3:20), while Christians are "made safe" from satanic misuse of humanity in order to function as God intended by the indwelling presence of God in Christ. Abraham and other Old Testament persons were "reckoned as righteous" (Rom. 4:3,9,22; Gal. 3:6) by their right responses to God, but Christians "become the righteousness of God in Christ" (II Cor. 5:21) as "Christ is our righteousness" (I Cor. 1:30). There is an undeniable theological discorrespondence from Old Testament to New Testament.
WildBoar
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
yeah his comment about the conditionality of all covenants and the free will thing was wacked (i wonder what he means by "mechanical manipulation"). i think overall though, i would agree that there is both continuity and discontinuity in the covenants. i don't know exactly what he means by "theological discorrespondences" but i would say that there is definite contrasts, especially between the old (first, mosaic, sinatic) covenant and the new (second, messianic, calvary) covenants. would you agree that there is a definite contrast here?
When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
--Erasmus
A room without books is a body without soul.
--Cicero
I certainly agree that there is both continuity and discontinuity. None but the most hardcore dispensationalist would argue for complete discontinuity and I've never heard anyone argue for complete continuity.
Sola Gratia,
WildBoar
For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks