Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[Arial]

Edenic covenant.
There was no Biblical covenant in Eden.
That was law, not covenant.

Only seven covenants are presented in Scripture: Noah, two to Abraham, Sinai, Phinehas (regarding priesthood), Davidic, and New.

Covenant theology seems to confuse administrations (dispensations) with covenants.

There is an Edenic covenant. A covenant is a relationship of oaths and bonds. It does not have to be called a covenant in order to be one.

The Edenic covenant is a covenant of works and was actually referred to as a covenant in Hosea 6:7. It sets forth the command and the penalty for Adam (Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:17-19) God promises Adam life and blessing with the condition of Adam's obedience.

This covenant is very important in the unfolding of God's plan of redemption. It shows man's inability to maintain a right relationship with God even in the paradise that He created for them.

Adam's breaking of this covenant of works is what left us in a fallen state. There followed a second unconditional covenant of redemption (which existed within the Godhead before creation) with our first ancestors. (Gen 3:14-24) It is the first promise of redemption and the first promise of Christ's coming. "You shall bruise His (the Seed of the woman) heel and He shall crush your head."

 

[ReverendRV]

There is an Edenic covenant. A covenant is a relationship of oaths and bonds. It does not have to be called a covenant in order to be one.

The Edenic covenant is a covenant of works and was actually referred to as a covenant in Hosea 6:7. It sets forth the command and the penalty for Adam (Gen 2:16-17; Gen 3:17-19) God promises Adam life and blessing with the condition of Adam's obedience.

This covenant is very important in the unfolding of God's plan of redemption. It shows man's inability to maintain a right relationship with God even in the paradise that He created for them.

Adam's breaking of this covenant of works is what left us in a fallen state. There followed a second unconditional covenant of redemption (which existed within the Godhead before creation) with our first ancestors. (Gen 3:14-24) It is the first promise of redemption and the first promise of Christ's coming. "You shall bruise His (the Seed of the woman) heel and He shall crush your head."

Perfect!

 

[ReverendRV]

Perfect!

A lot is lost when a Christian holds to Solo Scriptura...

Sure; Love Scripture THAT much. But please don't hate Theology. Don't treat Theology like Cinderella...

 

[David1701]

You ought to hear what they say when I say, (-1)+5=4

They say, "Get behind me Satan!"

Let's not get ridiculous...

 

[Eleanor]

There is an Edenic covenant. A covenant is a relationship of oaths and bonds. It does not have to be called a covenant in order to be one.

The Edenic covenant is a covenant of works and was actually referred to as a covenant in Hosea 6:7.

"Like Adam (Or As at Adam). . .they were unfaithful to me there." (Hos 6:7)

In Josh 3:16, Adam (Tell ed-Damiyeh) is a town at the Jordan.

Israel refused to cross the Jordan to go into Canaan in Nu 14.

 

[Arial]

"Like Adam (Or As at Adam). . .they were unfaithful to me there." (Hos 6:7)

In Josh 3:16, Adam (Tell ed-Damiyeh) is a town at the Jordan.

Israel refused to cross the Jordan to go into Canaan in Nu 14.

I think I will need your editor (reference to a post in another thread)to understand this one. Will wait with patience.

 

[Eleanor]

I think I will need your editor (reference to a post in another thread) to understand this one. Will wait with patience.

"Like Adam (Or As at Adam). . .or Like men
the Hebrew phrase can be interpreted as any of these.

they were unfaithful to me there." (Hos 6:7)
Reference to "there" suggests a place.

In Josh 3:16, Adam (Tell ed-Damiyeh) is a town (place) at the Jordan.

So, Hos 6:7, regarding breaking the covenant and being unfaithful to God there,
could be referring to Israel's refusal to cross the Jordan to go into Canaan in Nu 14, breaking the Mosaic Covenant,
rather than referring to a covenant with Adam.

Therefore: consistent with no OT testimony of a covenant with Adam.

Consistency is always the best way to understand Scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

There is an Edenic covenant. A covenant is a relationship of oaths and bonds. It does not have to be called a covenant in order to be one.Ac

Actually covenants have specific characteristics, they are either stated to be covenants, or they are cut in blood, or both.

The difficulty with "Edenic Covenant" is that it does not comply with the OT usage of covenant.
God's command to Adam was not a covenant. It was law.

The first covenant in the Bible was made to Noah and mankind, specifically stated to b a covenant (Ge 9:9).
The second covenant in the Bible was with Abraham, both cut in blood (Ge 15:8-21) and stated to be a covenant (Ge 15:18).
The third covenant in the Bible was with Abraham, the covenant of circumcision (G 17:1-27), cut in the blood of Abraham (Ge 17:23).
The fourth covenant in the Bible was with Israel at Mt Sinai, both cut in blood and stated to be a covenant (Ge 24:3-11).
The fifth covenant in the Bible was with Phinehas, specifically stated to be a covenant (Nu 25:12).
The sixth covenant in the Bible was with David (2 Sa 7:8-16), specifically stated to be a covenant (Ps 89:3, 34).
The seventh covenant in the Bible is the New Covenant (Lk 22:20) of peace (Heb 7:8-10) and grace, both stated to be a covenant (1 Co 11:25) and cut in the blood of Christ.

 

[Arial]

So, Hos 6:7, regarding breaking the covenant and being unfaithful to God there,
could be referring to Israel's refusal to cross the Jordan to go into Canaan in Nu 14, breaking the Mosaic Covenant,
rather than referring to a covenant with Adam.

Or it could mean exactly what it says.

Therefore: consistent with no OT testimony of a covenant with Adam.

Consistency is always the best way to understand Scripture.

You are right about consistency. So since I showed you the Edenic covenant from scripture, and that it is a covenant as it is an agreement between parties whether it is has the word or name covenant in it or not, why do you still deny it? It is where we first see the covenant of redemption come into play and promised. It is the very place we see the breaking by man a covenant that God made with him. It is the very framework of the entire God/man relationship and our need for a Redeemer, and the working out of this redemption. Through covenant.

But have it your way. It seems your mind is made up.

 

[Eleanor]

Or it could mean exactly what it says

Does "exactly what it says" not depend on which correct translation of the phrase is used?

In choosing which translation to use, the agreement of "At Adam" with the rest of the OT record is compelling evidence of its correctness.

You are right about consistency. So since I showed you the Edenic covenant from scripture, and that it is a covenant as it is an agreement between parties whether it is has the word or name covenant in it or not, why do you still deny it?

Are these the standards with which all covenants in Scripture are found to be consistent, which standards separate covenants from all other promises?

 

[Arial]

The diffuculty here arises from the use of the word covenant in a manner that is not used in Scripture.
Covenants have specific characteristics, they are either stated to be covenants, or they are cut in blood, or both.

A covenant is what it is. What is in the covenant depends on what type of covenant it is. There are different types of covenants in the Bible. The Sinai covenant for example is a land grant covenant and a covenant of works. It is bilateral. The covenant maker---God--- sets the stipulations with their promises for obedience and curses for disobedience. The Israelites agree to the terms and are bound by them. If they break this agreement by disobedience, God is not bound to meet the promises of the covenant and will bring the curses.

The covenant with Abraham that was for this land to come to his descendants was unilateral. As was the covenant of salvation through faith going to all nations. There were no conditions attached to it. The promise stood fast, God's responsibility to fulfill it. The sign of the land grant covenant was circumcision to identify those in the covenant. The second covenant was ratified by God Himself passing between the sacrifice.

The covenant with David was unilateral that he would always have a descendant on the throne and there was no blood of that covenant until Jesus shed it.

The covenant with Noah concerned creation. There was no shedding of blood.

The covenant with Adam (as shown in the other post) is stated. "You may do this, but you may not do that. If you do that, you will die." Command given, promise made, consequence for disobedience stated. Two parties. God. Adam. That is a covenant. It is a covenant of works, not faith.

Example is this world: The wedding vows. That is a covenant between two people before God as witness (though it is seldom viewed that way or performed before Him, and even less frequently honored.) Nevetheless it is a covenant even though it is not called the Covenant of Marriage.

 

[Arial]

God's command to Adam was not a covenant. It was law.

Well I did not say that the command was the covenant itself. It is the command that makes it a covenant of works. Just like in the Sinai covenant. The covenant was, "do not do this. If you do this here is what will happen. If you do not do that---eat of that tree--- this is what will be."

 

[Eleanor]

A covenant is what it is. What is in the covenant depends on what type of covenant it is. There are different types of covenants in the Bible. The Sinai covenant for example is a land grant covenant and a covenant of works. It is bilateral. The covenant maker---God--- sets the stipulations with their promises for obedience and curses for disobedience. The Israelites agree to the terms and are bound by them. If they break this agreement by disobedience, God is not bound to meet the promises of the covenant and will bring the curses.

The covenant with Abraham that was for this land to come to his descendants was unilateral. As was the covenant of salvation through faith going to all nations. There were no conditions attached to it. The promise stood fast, God's responsibility to fulfill it. The sign of the land grant covenant was circumcision to identify those in the covenant. The second covenant was ratified by God Himself passing between the sacrifice.

The covenant with David was unilateral that he would always have a descendant on the throne and there was no blood of that covenant until Jesus shed it.

The covenant with Noah concerned creation. There was no shedding of blood.

The covenant with Adam (as shown in the other post) is stated. "You may do this, but you may not do that. If you do that, you will die." Command given, promise made, consequence for disobedience stated. Two parties. God. Adam. That is a covenant. It is a covenant of works, not faith.

Example is this world: The wedding vows. That is a covenant between two people before God as witness (though it is seldom viewed that way or performed before Him, and even less frequently honored.) Nevetheless it is a covenant even though it is not called the Covenant of Marriage.

Yes, OT covenants can be different kinds (unilateral, bilater, conditional, unconditional) and relate to different matters( land grants, priesthood, dynasties) but they are still covenants.
Any other contracts in the OT are not covenants.

The issue here is referring to the law given to Adam in the OT as covenant.
That is not consistent with the OT usage of covenant.

 

[Eleanor]

Well I did not say that the command was the covenant itself. It is the command that makes it a covenant of works.

A distinction without a difference.

Commands are not covenants, nor do works make them covenants.

It is commands which make law, no covenant involved.

Just like in the Sinai covenant. The covenant was, "do not do this. If you do this here is what will happen. If you do not do that---eat of that tree--- this is what will be."

It is law which makes Sinai a covenant of works, law is not what makes Sinai a covenant.

 

[Josheb]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that came from Edwards.

Oh no! Not Edwards! What was Riddlebarger doing cribbing from Edwards! LOL! You're probably correct. I'll have to go pull my Edwards off the shelf and see.

You're right! Google is my friend "You contribute nothing to your salvation except the sin that made it necessary." Jonathan Edwards


thx


.

 

[Arial]

Does "exactly what it says" not depend on which correct translation of the phrase is used?

What or who determines what is the correct translation? Exactly what it says means exactly what it says without having to find a way to make it say something other than its face and literal value.
NIV As at Adam,, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.
ESV But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; they dealt faithlessly with me.
NASB But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against me.

In translation after translation it says Adam. There are a number of explanations for this as well as support for it being rendered man as well as criticism on both sides.And for Adam being a place. So I am not discounting anything you said about it. But none of that changes the fact that in Eden there is a contract God made by God with Adam, and it was Adam violating this contract/covenant that threw men into the category of covenant breakers.

Are these the standards with which all covenants in Scripture are found to be consistent?

Yes.

 

[Josheb]

You don't want to mess with those Scots...

Yep.

But I'll tell you a story. My ancestors are Irish. When I was young my parents would take us to the Irish games where the stones and cabers were tossed (which are really Scottish, not Irish) and one day my mom asked me, "Do you see how strong those men are?" and then following my nodding affirmation she leaned over and whispered, "The English whipped them".



No matter how big (or strong, or smart) you are, there's always someone bigger.

 

[ReverendRV]

What or who determines what is the correct translation? Exactly what it says means exactly what it says without having to find a way to make it say something other than its face and literal value.
NIV As at Adam,, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.
ESV But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; they dealt faithlessly with me.
NASB But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against me.

In translation after translation it says Adam. There are a number of explanations for this as well as support for it being rendered man as well as criticism on both sides.And for Adam being a place. So I am not discounting anything you said about it. But none of that changes the fact that in Eden there is a contract God made by God with Adam, and it was Adam violating this contract/covenant that threw men into the category of covenant breakers.


Yes.

You know you are right...

In times past, I took a person's resistance to the Obvious; the hard way. But let's not forget; some Sow, some Water, but God gives the growth...

 

[Arial]

A distinction without a difference.

Incorrect. It is a difference not a distinction.

Commands are not covenants, nor do works make them covenants.

It is commands which make law, no covenant involved.

Bilateral covenants have commands.

Commands are laws.

It is law which makes Sinai a covenant of works, that is not what makes Sinai a covenant.

I did not say that law made Sinai a covenant. I said the fact that the SInai covenant has laws is what makes it a covenant of works. It is the same thing you are saying. Why do you misstate me?

 

[Eleanor]

What or who determines what is the correct translation?
Exactly what it says means exactly what it says without having to find a way to make it say something other than its face and literal value.

I've Biblically demonstrated that.
My error must be Biblically demonstrated, not just asserted.

NIV As at Adam,, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.
ESV But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; they dealt faithlessly with me.
NASB But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against me.

In translation after translation it says Adam. There are a number of explanations for this as well as support for it being rendered man as well as criticism on both sides.And for Adam being a place. So I am not discounting anything you said about it. But none of that changes the fact that in Eden there is a contract God made by God with Adam, and it was Adam violating this contract/covenant that threw men into the category of covenant breakers.

I've Biblically demonsrated that.
My error regarding the nature of covenants must be Biblically demonstrated, not just asserted.