Some of that which was in discussing the image covenant relates to baptism. Our likeness dies with Christ. And we are raised with him and given life through it also. It's purpose as a sign of justification and propitiation cannot be ignore. It was not in Catholicism because it was thought to cause it. Somehow it has been divorced from it by appling the principle of a covenant to those who may never see any saving grace of the nation that it is an ordinance of.
Since it follows likeness and justification, I believe that this is for believers. This inward regeneration and grace signified in water baptism is for
1) an outward sign of circumcision that lets believer's bear a sign of their citizenship to nation of heaven in their bodies as well as internally in their life.
2) It is an the first act of obedience for believers to be set apart to God.
3) It is an allegence to such a nation to follows its laws.
4) It is also an appeal to God for help to follow those laws.
It is not
1) Washing away of Dirt or Sin
2) It is not something that supplies the grace
3) the same as baptism or application of Christ's blood
4) independant of the grace in the person.
5) to be applied to non-believers.
I think immersion is more proper but I cannot exclude sprinkling as a baptism.
Immersions stresses the burial and the tomb of Christ, moving to life from death. Sprinkling stresses the propitiatory sacrifice, application of blood, and the annointing of grace. They both signify enterance into the covenant and nation. They are an outward showing ordinance of something inward.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
theo 10
I have been looking at different confessions. I fall outside of westminister but arguably not very far. I am within dordt. There seems some viabilty in shifting Covenant of Works on merit. There is some on dominion but new testament sources do not discuss it much. Nor does the bible clearly establish without allegory on Christ's final reign of revelation without reference to Adam. Such requires allegory that arises from Christ being called second Adam. The only appropriate allegory are the ones used by the apostles. Possibly justified but not substantiated. This is the problem with such fitting structures into scripture. Even for exegisis of any other Covenant theology. Now I see something else at work in the new testament on God's image that needs discussion.
The new testament includes love, holiness, righteousness, and imitation as primary attributes to God's image. There remains a link to First Adam in rule but this is tenuous. It seems that christ aught to rule instead of Adam or us. This covers the lack of emphasis for believers, but does not provide closure.
Something else has eluded me on image something in 1 John. The command that has existed since the begining. Not the begining of the law but from the begining. It is love. How does this play into the covenants? Covenant of what amounts to 'love' rather than works. It seems like an oxymoron for Adam. Why is that
I am getting to the point which I see that Adam could not fulfill the terms, whereas Christ could perfectly. Adam could not love God as he aught. Adam could not keep the essence of keeping a covenant because he had not love as he aught. Christ abounded in it. The legal construction is begining to mean less and less. The exact imprint, Christ himself, begins to look more and more like the standard to which Adam had to maintain. This includes excellence in love. Adam could have been made perfect, good, and kept to it as clockwork. Yet, this is not love. Love includes going as far as possible away from disobedience and destruction. Even in that which is not sinful. I cannot say that Adam had this in him, for he was weak and of the flesh.
It is true that Adam was but an image and in no way comparable to the real thing. I am surprised that Adam was not shown to be counterfeit sooner in the far surpassing the excellencies of Christ. Now, What is man that you are mindful of him. Or son of man that you care? We know not an answer but that Christ has exhalted us by sharing in our humanity. He has exhalted us in our union with him. He has exhalted us by election and eternal life. We dare not deserve of it, but he has crowned us with grace. He has given us worth where there was none.
I am hindered by the flesh. I fall short everyday. I fall short in every action. The worth of unfallen man was nothing special for it's price was not Christ. Christ stands to give worth by his blood to this fledgling form. This is suffiecent because I know that it is outside of myself and cannot change. It is a firm anchor beyond the veil. I do not lose heart. There is no value in anything without looking at the price tag. Christ himself.
The new testament includes love, holiness, righteousness, and imitation as primary attributes to God's image. There remains a link to First Adam in rule but this is tenuous. It seems that christ aught to rule instead of Adam or us. This covers the lack of emphasis for believers, but does not provide closure.
Something else has eluded me on image something in 1 John. The command that has existed since the begining. Not the begining of the law but from the begining. It is love. How does this play into the covenants? Covenant of what amounts to 'love' rather than works. It seems like an oxymoron for Adam. Why is that
I am getting to the point which I see that Adam could not fulfill the terms, whereas Christ could perfectly. Adam could not love God as he aught. Adam could not keep the essence of keeping a covenant because he had not love as he aught. Christ abounded in it. The legal construction is begining to mean less and less. The exact imprint, Christ himself, begins to look more and more like the standard to which Adam had to maintain. This includes excellence in love. Adam could have been made perfect, good, and kept to it as clockwork. Yet, this is not love. Love includes going as far as possible away from disobedience and destruction. Even in that which is not sinful. I cannot say that Adam had this in him, for he was weak and of the flesh.
It is true that Adam was but an image and in no way comparable to the real thing. I am surprised that Adam was not shown to be counterfeit sooner in the far surpassing the excellencies of Christ. Now, What is man that you are mindful of him. Or son of man that you care? We know not an answer but that Christ has exhalted us by sharing in our humanity. He has exhalted us in our union with him. He has exhalted us by election and eternal life. We dare not deserve of it, but he has crowned us with grace. He has given us worth where there was none.
I am hindered by the flesh. I fall short everyday. I fall short in every action. The worth of unfallen man was nothing special for it's price was not Christ. Christ stands to give worth by his blood to this fledgling form. This is suffiecent because I know that it is outside of myself and cannot change. It is a firm anchor beyond the veil. I do not lose heart. There is no value in anything without looking at the price tag. Christ himself.
Theo 9
It just occurred to me that Bearing God's image can fall under a legal covenant that discusses man's dominion over God's creation. As with any arrangement that substitutes one sub-ruler over another's domain. The sub-ruler cannot claim authority over that which lies outside of his own. To do so is equivalent to rebellion. (ie The forbidden tree is outside Adam's). The sub-ruler additionally in this type of covenant is suppose to rule and act like the main ruler. (ie dishonor the main ruler to do otherwise). The cultural mandate thus becomes the provisions and powers of this past covenant. This mandate likewise follows that the curses of the fall. The broken covenant meant there was a repeal of the provisions by instituting pain, suffering, and death in the pursuit of man's naturally rule. It does not destroy the image bearing outright. These rather make it too difficult for man to pretend that he rules every living thing exclusively. Man must eat his bread by sweat and return to the dust. Death and pain have become his master.
There is plenty of extra-biblical evidence for a sub-ruler covenant of this type that involves image bearing in the Egyptians. Pharaohs were images of Horus. At one time, pharaohs were merely followers of Horus, rather leaders that were incarnations of him.
Bearing his image meant physically acting like Horus to the Egyptians. This later boiled down to acting like the other pharaohs. Ptolemy I shows us this trend. He had to act like a pharaoh to remain one. He had to incestuously married his children.
Now the question remains could the covenant of works be replaced by such a different covenant. A different covenant with similar requirements but entirely different terms. The ramifications with respect to Christ as second Adam are minimal but easily discerned. It makes sense of why everything is to be put under His feet. It is part of being the second adam. Close the box again, quick!
There is plenty of extra-biblical evidence for a sub-ruler covenant of this type that involves image bearing in the Egyptians. Pharaohs were images of Horus. At one time, pharaohs were merely followers of Horus, rather leaders that were incarnations of him.
Bearing his image meant physically acting like Horus to the Egyptians. This later boiled down to acting like the other pharaohs. Ptolemy I shows us this trend. He had to act like a pharaoh to remain one. He had to incestuously married his children.
Now the question remains could the covenant of works be replaced by such a different covenant. A different covenant with similar requirements but entirely different terms. The ramifications with respect to Christ as second Adam are minimal but easily discerned. It makes sense of why everything is to be put under His feet. It is part of being the second adam. Close the box again, quick!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Theo 8
It seems i have unleashed something by first trying rewrite Covenant of Works. Perhaps there is still time to close the box.
The problem with changing the idea of works relates to internalizing merit and turning it into something closer to grace. The image of God is complex theologically since it has applications and atonement in the new testament. Thus it is extended its application not just to 2nd adam (christ) but to all. Yet, in a way it also internalizes demerit. This requires complex dealings with imputation. By internalizing demerit and turning it into something outside of works there exists questions of how christ takes up that demerit or rather iniquity in making satisfaction. This includes further iniquities and sin outside of original sin not covered in just the correction of image. This begs to ask should the works of sin see punishment or just the fallen persons of those works who sinned in christ. This may seem strange to ask by separating the two yet necessary when the two are so closely joined. It is also hard to do such without staying in Orthodoxy. Since everything hinges on justification.
Thus this series practically served to express doubts as I worked through this other idea. There is hope for this sort of internalization. It has implifications to personal responsiblity. Primarily on the person not the works hence the reason to re-examine covenantal responsibilty of Adam. It is also tantalizing to push works righteousness over a cliff once and for all. It begs to ask how or what quality is it that vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy are responsible to God. It begs also to answer the question christ rhetorically asked. "Why do you call me good, No one is good except God." When Christ says this, is he rejecting merit or claiming divinity or both?
The theology of image bearing still needs to be cooked out further. This requires finding biblical support since this series lacked it. By this I mean direct exigesis. I was working off of my impressions of what is in the bible and what evidences could be marshalled. This does not meant it is unbiblical perse but rather that it needs work. There is lack of support on the covenant of works to from direct exigesis. It would require much more work that what I have put in. It would require a whole book. My impressions may be flawed or right. Or some combination of the two; they need testing.
In the mean time, I may still consider this internalization of Covenant of works and also with respect to merit/grace to image. I have evidence from orthodox between the external and internal references to this covenant. They seem to float around when people are less precise than they aught. Yet, I also do not want to be the one for spliting hairs. The covenant of works is definitely correct in its implifications toward christ. I will not be equivocal here but the question is are there more implifications if it is internalized. Or are there problems. It presents a whole other system. I am more concerned with if it can be worked out as to why and how this other system for this covenant. It is outside of relying on forensic/substitutional imputation of merely the effects. It rather imputes or substitutes causes of fulfilment in the person himself.
The problem with changing the idea of works relates to internalizing merit and turning it into something closer to grace. The image of God is complex theologically since it has applications and atonement in the new testament. Thus it is extended its application not just to 2nd adam (christ) but to all. Yet, in a way it also internalizes demerit. This requires complex dealings with imputation. By internalizing demerit and turning it into something outside of works there exists questions of how christ takes up that demerit or rather iniquity in making satisfaction. This includes further iniquities and sin outside of original sin not covered in just the correction of image. This begs to ask should the works of sin see punishment or just the fallen persons of those works who sinned in christ. This may seem strange to ask by separating the two yet necessary when the two are so closely joined. It is also hard to do such without staying in Orthodoxy. Since everything hinges on justification.
Thus this series practically served to express doubts as I worked through this other idea. There is hope for this sort of internalization. It has implifications to personal responsiblity. Primarily on the person not the works hence the reason to re-examine covenantal responsibilty of Adam. It is also tantalizing to push works righteousness over a cliff once and for all. It begs to ask how or what quality is it that vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy are responsible to God. It begs also to answer the question christ rhetorically asked. "Why do you call me good, No one is good except God." When Christ says this, is he rejecting merit or claiming divinity or both?
The theology of image bearing still needs to be cooked out further. This requires finding biblical support since this series lacked it. By this I mean direct exigesis. I was working off of my impressions of what is in the bible and what evidences could be marshalled. This does not meant it is unbiblical perse but rather that it needs work. There is lack of support on the covenant of works to from direct exigesis. It would require much more work that what I have put in. It would require a whole book. My impressions may be flawed or right. Or some combination of the two; they need testing.
In the mean time, I may still consider this internalization of Covenant of works and also with respect to merit/grace to image. I have evidence from orthodox between the external and internal references to this covenant. They seem to float around when people are less precise than they aught. Yet, I also do not want to be the one for spliting hairs. The covenant of works is definitely correct in its implifications toward christ. I will not be equivocal here but the question is are there more implifications if it is internalized. Or are there problems. It presents a whole other system. I am more concerned with if it can be worked out as to why and how this other system for this covenant. It is outside of relying on forensic/substitutional imputation of merely the effects. It rather imputes or substitutes causes of fulfilment in the person himself.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
theo 7
Is this imputation of sin to christ the same type as that of righteousness? Let us say yes. I could easily say no and say the acts of sin, trangressions, are transfered whereas Christ's works are not. Is the image of flesh, forensically (or rather substitutionally*) punished for iniquity in christ? Or rather does the substitution transfer the works, as demerit, to Christ for punishment?
Now, I tend to believe the first one. Christ seems to only be able to take up sin because he is in our likeness as fully man. This tends toward favoring a imputation of the sin in the same lines of as his image in us. It is by union with christ. Christ became fully man or flesh not an just an image though. Thus the image of flesh was truly flesh in Christ. He was fully man descended through Adam, but not adam, to crush the serpant head. He was sinless. It is clear that this imputation is not just by partial likeness, via an image with more to be revealed but a complete likeness of man which provided total satifaction. Thus our attributes (iniquities) were counted as his and punished under the law. He died fully as God said man would. He also died a death that only God could. Sin was thus condemned in the flesh. He died so that His people will live in the spirit.
Yet, we know we shall be like Christ. This is in our humanity not in his divinity. New humanity will resemble nothing less than the image bearers of God when in heaven. It will look like unfallen humanity but we can be certain it will be more glorified. It will be in constant communion with christ. What it will we, we do not know, for christ has not appeared.
The sin is laid on the offering and the guilt is removed. The offering is certainly still sinless without the evil deads but the guilt and attributes of the sinner is transfered and punishment carried out. The nature of the offering isn't imparted to the person but the outward quality or state of being sinless is. Now, is righteousness rejected by rejecting merit? No. Is iniquity rejected by rejecting demerit? No.
Now I tend to believe that demerit and merit are figments of our imagination to give worth to our choices as being external, rather than who we are internally as revealed in our works. Demerit often follows guilt and merit often follows righteousness but that which is internal determines what is external. The effects cannot outweigh the causes.
I am still not sure where I stand on Covenant of Works. Or if I am going more for Image bearing. He who knew no sin, was made sin.
*Why is it that we aren't called substitutionally righteous. This makes more sense than saying forensic, alien, or imputed. His righteousness in place of ours.
Now, I tend to believe the first one. Christ seems to only be able to take up sin because he is in our likeness as fully man. This tends toward favoring a imputation of the sin in the same lines of as his image in us. It is by union with christ. Christ became fully man or flesh not an just an image though. Thus the image of flesh was truly flesh in Christ. He was fully man descended through Adam, but not adam, to crush the serpant head. He was sinless. It is clear that this imputation is not just by partial likeness, via an image with more to be revealed but a complete likeness of man which provided total satifaction. Thus our attributes (iniquities) were counted as his and punished under the law. He died fully as God said man would. He also died a death that only God could. Sin was thus condemned in the flesh. He died so that His people will live in the spirit.
Yet, we know we shall be like Christ. This is in our humanity not in his divinity. New humanity will resemble nothing less than the image bearers of God when in heaven. It will look like unfallen humanity but we can be certain it will be more glorified. It will be in constant communion with christ. What it will we, we do not know, for christ has not appeared.
The sin is laid on the offering and the guilt is removed. The offering is certainly still sinless without the evil deads but the guilt and attributes of the sinner is transfered and punishment carried out. The nature of the offering isn't imparted to the person but the outward quality or state of being sinless is. Now, is righteousness rejected by rejecting merit? No. Is iniquity rejected by rejecting demerit? No.
Now I tend to believe that demerit and merit are figments of our imagination to give worth to our choices as being external, rather than who we are internally as revealed in our works. Demerit often follows guilt and merit often follows righteousness but that which is internal determines what is external. The effects cannot outweigh the causes.
I am still not sure where I stand on Covenant of Works. Or if I am going more for Image bearing. He who knew no sin, was made sin.
*Why is it that we aren't called substitutionally righteous. This makes more sense than saying forensic, alien, or imputed. His righteousness in place of ours.
Theo 6
I have so far dealt with original sin in failing the covenant of works or rather image bearing. I have not dealt with actual transgressions. These trangressions are evident of the original sin. They are also sins themselves. The two are also related to each other. I hold that the actual sins must also be punished.
These could be seen as further attempts to damage that image of God depending on how this image is shattered yet retained. The Law of sinai contained the abbriviated form of the perfections of God's image. It also bore witness of Christ. It meant only to condemn further. The sin would be against God's image in a way. Yet, there is also sin not in the likeness of Adam. It is shown that it is insufficient to just treat Sin parallel to original sin. We must also consider those who did not sin in the likeness of adam.
Yet, we know that the relation is they both (original and actual sin) fall short of God's glory. God punished both at once in Christ. One could also avoid this problem by saying that demerit can not exist. Or that demerit is just original sin not our actions. This is very much in agreement with hypercalvinism and predestination. God clearly says otherwise.
The Guilt is real. The guilt also comes from the person not the works. This is shown in Romans 9. Our image before God is now christ but we are guilty for when it wasn't./ We are not just guilty for the fall. Although, this is sufficient guilt. We are also guilty for what has happened after it. This iniquity and guilt from it must be done away with in christ. Let us see how it is in christ in propitiation and atonement.
These could be seen as further attempts to damage that image of God depending on how this image is shattered yet retained. The Law of sinai contained the abbriviated form of the perfections of God's image. It also bore witness of Christ. It meant only to condemn further. The sin would be against God's image in a way. Yet, there is also sin not in the likeness of Adam. It is shown that it is insufficient to just treat Sin parallel to original sin. We must also consider those who did not sin in the likeness of adam.
Yet, we know that the relation is they both (original and actual sin) fall short of God's glory. God punished both at once in Christ. One could also avoid this problem by saying that demerit can not exist. Or that demerit is just original sin not our actions. This is very much in agreement with hypercalvinism and predestination. God clearly says otherwise.
The Guilt is real. The guilt also comes from the person not the works. This is shown in Romans 9. Our image before God is now christ but we are guilty for when it wasn't./ We are not just guilty for the fall. Although, this is sufficient guilt. We are also guilty for what has happened after it. This iniquity and guilt from it must be done away with in christ. Let us see how it is in christ in propitiation and atonement.
theo 5
Having taken time to look through Murray. Or at least criticisms of him. It seems that He is critisized for demolishing anything of Law by Grace. He is far from establishing such. It is almost destroying the separateness because he wants to also destroy the distinctness of them. My ideas follow a slightly different foundation than Murray's. I find that image bearing is gracious. Thus the OT law that shows it is good. The OT law did not promise righteousness that image bearing does in Justification before God. It was only ment to condemn further and provide israel blessings. It was to entrust them also with far greater promises.
Covenant of redemption/counsel of peace must be tied to image bearing. "Let us make man in our own image." Covenant of Grace flows from the covenant of redemption (God's council) to earn the effects of the covenant of image bearing in Christ. And the pact made with man that he bear God's image is distict but related. Now the covenant of grace under image bearing becomes a means to achieve such in Christ. Specifically by unconditional election and grace. Covenant of Grace is related to bonding a specific people to God himself. This is functionally in between traditional covenant theology and Murray's. It is nearest to calvin but not quite his. I have yet to throw in sacraments and administrative questions to the covenants.
I have a long article that still needs to be finished on baptism.
Covenant of redemption/counsel of peace must be tied to image bearing. "Let us make man in our own image." Covenant of Grace flows from the covenant of redemption (God's council) to earn the effects of the covenant of image bearing in Christ. And the pact made with man that he bear God's image is distict but related. Now the covenant of grace under image bearing becomes a means to achieve such in Christ. Specifically by unconditional election and grace. Covenant of Grace is related to bonding a specific people to God himself. This is functionally in between traditional covenant theology and Murray's. It is nearest to calvin but not quite his. I have yet to throw in sacraments and administrative questions to the covenants.
I have a long article that still needs to be finished on baptism.
Monday, June 11, 2007
deep theo 4
Having taken time to look through Murray. Or at least criticisms of him. It seems that He is critisized for demolishing anything of Law by Grace. He is far from establishing such. It is almost destroying the separateness because he wants to also destroy the distinctness of them. My ideas follow a slightly different foundation than Murray's. I find that image bearing is gracious. Thus the OT law that shows it is good. The OT law did not promise righteousness that image bearing does in Justification before God. It was only ment to condemn further and provide israel blessings. It was to entrust them also with far greater promises.
Covenant of redemption/counsel of peace must be tied to image bearing. "Let us make man in our own image." Covenant of Grace flows from the covenant of redemption (God's council) to earn the effects of the covenant of image bearing in Christ. And the pact made with man that he bear God's image is distict but related. Now the covenant of grace under image bearing becomes a means to achieve such in Christ. Specifically by unconditional election and grace. Covenant of Grace is related to bonding a specific people to God himself. This is functionally in between traditional covenant theology and Murray's. It is nearest to calvin but not quite his. I have yet to throw in sacraments and administrative questions to the covenants.
I have a long article that still needs to be finished on baptism.
Covenant of redemption/counsel of peace must be tied to image bearing. "Let us make man in our own image." Covenant of Grace flows from the covenant of redemption (God's council) to earn the effects of the covenant of image bearing in Christ. And the pact made with man that he bear God's image is distict but related. Now the covenant of grace under image bearing becomes a means to achieve such in Christ. Specifically by unconditional election and grace. Covenant of Grace is related to bonding a specific people to God himself. This is functionally in between traditional covenant theology and Murray's. It is nearest to calvin but not quite his. I have yet to throw in sacraments and administrative questions to the covenants.
I have a long article that still needs to be finished on baptism.
Deep theo 3
I was reading and it appears that this debate already is raging. What I put forth seems to follow it or rather Calvin. Covenant of works and Covenant of redemption are tied closer to the covenant of Grace. Almost into a single covenant with distinct aspects. Distinct but not separate.
As for Law with capital L. The Law of sinai shows God's image. It cannot justify in fulfilling the covenant of image bearing but can only condemn. Thus the Law of sinai is outside of grace. Yet, God's image is the standard of it.
The 2nd great debate on Calvin's theology circles around his coventant theology.
I am returning back to John Murray's thoughts I think. I have never read the man.
It seems that the image bearing formulation takes kline's view and systemizes them with murray. I am looking at one other person. I disagree with Jordan on saying that something was lacking in Adam's covenant relationship with God. I would say that such a relationship was the end not a means of something else.
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/01.html
As for Law with capital L. The Law of sinai shows God's image. It cannot justify in fulfilling the covenant of image bearing but can only condemn. Thus the Law of sinai is outside of grace. Yet, God's image is the standard of it.
The 2nd great debate on Calvin's theology circles around his coventant theology.
I am returning back to John Murray's thoughts I think. I have never read the man.
It seems that the image bearing formulation takes kline's view and systemizes them with murray. I am looking at one other person. I disagree with Jordan on saying that something was lacking in Adam's covenant relationship with God. I would say that such a relationship was the end not a means of something else.
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/01.html
theo 2
I was carefully looking around some old people on this topic. Particularly Calvin. He talks about the covenant of works as a grace in which Adam was created. It seems that he structured the "covenant of works" around that grace. This grace was namely from creation in being created in God's image. Adam was held within this grace and was to continue in it. 'Covenant of Works'? It was not coined til later. Calvin was also historically outside the statement of trent on merit but not the conclusions. It was tenuous at best.
Now the real problem has arisen. I see it a little more clearly.
The one thing seems to be holding me back in making the extension of the covenant of image bearing into redemption. I cannot balance law and Gospel on a scale as opposites as well. By redefining "the law" beyond works righteousnes; there is less of a reformed distinction between law and grace. Grace in this scheme thus establishes the law and righteousness. Yet, 100% forensic via union with Christ (faith). Only later to be revealed in full by ressurection/transfiguration at judgment.
If I seem to fix this issue on imputation by trying to avoid merit. In a twist of irony, I return closer to Rome, the merit whore. Now, for all those listening. This would be Roman if I changed forensic righteousness into infused righteousness. This is to make this righteousness external again rather than relational. This drives into the heart of what a covenant is. Is it terms to a relationship? or terms of one? By making it terms of One, Covenant of works is reinstated in a new form.
I am left with one monkey wrench to settle. Calvin said that heaven would have still been further grace due only to God's kindness. I am swayed by this a lot but the question is can Christ merit such kindness from God remains. Strictly speaking is it due to him or just grace to us? They are not mutually exclusive. Calvin says that it is ridiculus to set up Christ's merit against God's Grace. Calvin takes me this far and leaves me with only the goodness of God and/or Christ's Goodness to consider.
This image bearing is far too close to a form of monocovenantalism and one tenant of FV. Dare I venture to join the ranks of Murry, Hoekema, dutch theologians, and Calvin in making up my mind here? Or Do I side with most of Reformed theology in the confessions? Time to return to the Bible again.
Now the real problem has arisen. I see it a little more clearly.
The one thing seems to be holding me back in making the extension of the covenant of image bearing into redemption. I cannot balance law and Gospel on a scale as opposites as well. By redefining "the law" beyond works righteousnes; there is less of a reformed distinction between law and grace. Grace in this scheme thus establishes the law and righteousness. Yet, 100% forensic via union with Christ (faith). Only later to be revealed in full by ressurection/transfiguration at judgment.
If I seem to fix this issue on imputation by trying to avoid merit. In a twist of irony, I return closer to Rome, the merit whore. Now, for all those listening. This would be Roman if I changed forensic righteousness into infused righteousness. This is to make this righteousness external again rather than relational. This drives into the heart of what a covenant is. Is it terms to a relationship? or terms of one? By making it terms of One, Covenant of works is reinstated in a new form.
I am left with one monkey wrench to settle. Calvin said that heaven would have still been further grace due only to God's kindness. I am swayed by this a lot but the question is can Christ merit such kindness from God remains. Strictly speaking is it due to him or just grace to us? They are not mutually exclusive. Calvin says that it is ridiculus to set up Christ's merit against God's Grace. Calvin takes me this far and leaves me with only the goodness of God and/or Christ's Goodness to consider.
This image bearing is far too close to a form of monocovenantalism and one tenant of FV. Dare I venture to join the ranks of Murry, Hoekema, dutch theologians, and Calvin in making up my mind here? Or Do I side with most of Reformed theology in the confessions? Time to return to the Bible again.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)