Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[Eleanor]

Bilateral covenants have commands.

Commands are laws.

Agreed.

 

[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.

Ask her, "What stops Hosea 6:7 from producing Sound Doctrine?". If she says, "All Scripture determines Sound Doctrine, and controls out of hand Pretexting"; remind her that Hosea 6:7 is part of All Scripture too, and can rightly bear weight on the Understanding of HER Pretexting...

It's Special Pleading for one Poster to want Solo Scriptura to be their Echo Chamber, IE wanting Pretexting only for themselves...

 

[Arial]

Ask her, "What stops Hosea 6:7 from producing Sound Doctrine?". If she says, "All Scripture determines Sound Doctrine, and controls out of hand Pretexting"; remind her that Hosea 6:7 is part of All Scripture too, and can rightly bear weight on the Understanding of HER Pretexting...

It's Special Pleading for one Poster to want Solo Scriptura to be their Echo Chamber, IE wanting Pretexting only for themselves...

Agreed. It is no different than anyone else determining for themselves that what they feel/think scripture is saying is what scripture is. That is what happens when a person thinks sound, and by historical definition, theology in order to arrive at sound doctrine. Or at the very least in order to defend the doctrines they present.

Pretty sure sola scriptura does not say that Jesus was reborn. And it does not preclude something from being a covenant simply because it doesn't fit the predetermined by a poster, elements of a covenant.

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed. It is no different than anyone else determining for themselves that what they feel/think scripture is saying is what scripture is. That is what happens when a person thinks sound, and by historical definition, theology in order to arrive at sound doctrine. Or at the very least in order to defend the doctrines they present.

Pretty sure sola scriptura does not say that Jesus was reborn.

Pretty sure she did not say that he was.
More than "pretty sure," actually "pretty positive," either one has not paid attention to her response, or (at best) one chooses not to understand it.

And it does not preclude something from being a covenant simply because it doesn't fit the predetermined by a poster, elements of a covenant.

That is an assertion without Biblical demonstration, which makes it an assertion without merit.

 

[Arial]

Pretty sure she did not say that he was.
More than "pretty sure," actually "pretty positive," either one has not paid attention to her response, or (at best) one chooses not to understand it.

Bottom of post 6 in Did Christ Die For us Eternally.

That is an assertion without Biblical demonstration, which makes it an assertion without merit.

If you don't call the biblical demonstration I gave you biblical demonstration---then what on earth do you call biblical demonstration that would satisfy you?!

 

[Eleanor]

Bottom of post 6 in Did Christ Die For us Eternally.

If you don't call the biblical demonstration I gave you biblical demonstration---then what on earth do you call biblical demonstration that would satisfy you?!

Bottom of post #6 in "Did Christ actually suffer eternal torment on our behalf?":

Spiritual death; i.e., absence of eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit could be possible, since it is the wages of sin (Ge 2:17:
"Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)."
It might have been the source of, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
But then there is the issue of when the return of divine eternal life to his human spirit in the new birth.

The above is my demonstration, not yours.
So this can't be what you are talking about.

 

[Arial]

Spiritual death; i.e., absence of eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit could be possible, since it is the wages of sin (Ge 2:17:
"Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)."
It might have been the source of, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
But then there is the issue of when the return of divine eternal life to his human spirit in the new birth.

The above is my demonstration, not yours.
So this can't be what you are talking about.

Bolded and underlined. You suggest that Jesus was born again.

 

[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.

Could not the JW make the same argument. Their Bible translates Jn 1:1 as "and the Word was a god."
That being exactly what their Bible says, exactly what it says means exactly what it says.

When there are several correct translations of a word in the Hebrew, does it mean the one chosen by translators is an absolute guarantee of the best choice when another one is more in correspondence with the rest of Scripture?

 

[Eleanor]

Bolded and underlined. You suggest that Jesus was born again.

Yes, I did.

Sorry for all the confusion, but that response was totally speculative, in response to a speculative notion put forth in the OP; i.e. that Jesus died spiritually in our place.

My responses are speculatively walking through this speculative notion to see if it pans out Biblically.

They are not necessarily statements of my beliefs.

Sure hope this clears things up about my responses in that thread.

 

[Arial]

Yes, I did.

Sorry for all the confusion, but that response was totally speculative, in response to a speculative notion put forth in the OP; i.e. that Jesus died spiritually in our place.

My responses are speculatively walking through this speculative notion to see if it pans out Biblically.

They are not necessarily statements of my beliefs.

Sure hope this clears things up about my responses in that thread.

It clears it up to some degree but not until after the fact and responses to what was not stated as being speculative or presented as speculative but as though it was what you believe. Clarity needs to be made before or after, or during what is being said. And you did argue with me about it when I responded as though it was your belief, and presented by own understanding of what occured in/with Jesus at His death and resurrection. So what do you believe about it?

 

[Arial]

Could not the JW make the same argument. Their Bible translates Jn 1:1 as "and the Word was a god."
That being exactly what their Bible says, exactly what it says means exactly what it says.

When there are several correct translations of a word in the Hebrew, does it mean the one chosen by translators is an absolute guarantee of the best choice when another one is more in correspondence with the rest of Scripture?

I already said I did not discount any of what you presented concerning the word most frequently translated Adam in that Hos scripture. And I showed you why either way it is translated does not change the fact that there is an Edenic covenant (which was the subject). Adam was the first covenant breaker and as a result we are all covenant breakers. God of necessity must be in a covenantal relationship with mankind and His creation. He is a covenantal God---Father, Son, and Holy Spirit---in a covenant within the Godhead. Read "Introducing Covenant Theology" by Michael Horton if you want a better understanding of what you deny, before simply denying it through the presuppositional lens of dispensationalists---their way of dealing with Bible covenants. It takes whole books to deal with it in depth and fully. I am not even going to attempt it here.

And just for the record. To measure my comment about picking and choosing translations to suit ones purpose by the JW bible: Their Bible is not a translation and is not legitimate. It is the legitimate translations rewritten and translated in order to deny the teachings of scripture and support their own heresies. And it was done by people who legitimized their efforts by claiming much knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and were later proved in court to have none whatsoever.

 

[Eleanor]

I already said I did not discount any of what you presented concerning the word most frequently translated Adam in that Hos scripture. And I showed you why either way it is translated does not change the fact that there is an Edenic covenant (which was the subject).

I guess I'm still not being clear. Biblically (Sola Scriptura) speaking, only seven "covenants" are presented in Scripture.
Any other covenants presented by man's theology do not have Biblical authority. They are simply his inventions which he finds useful to his theology.

The law given to Adam is not stated in Scripture to be a covenant.
You presented Hos 6:7, which was translated from the Hebrew to: "Like Adam, they have broken the covenant--they were unfaithful to me there," in demonstration that the law given to Adam was indeed a covenant.

To which I responded with the fact that the Hebrew word used for "Adam" in Hos 6:7 can be correctly translated also as "At Adam," or "Like men,"
pointing out that the also-correct translation of "At Adam" was more consistent with the import of Hos 6:7 in its use of the word "there," which suggests a place, and also pointing out
the fact that there was a place named Adam at the Jordan, which was where they rebelled against going into Canaan and broke the covenant.

I concluded from the above facts that "At Adam" (the town) was the better correct translation of the correct three regarding Ho 6:7, for it agreed with other Scripture regarding Israel's rebellion and, therefore, Ho 6:7 did not present a covenant with Adam, but rather a town named Adam and,
thereby, did not demonstrate that the law given in Eden was a covenant.

The real problem with Covenant theology is not its schemata, but its wrong use of the word "covenant," causing confusion with the Biblical record. If Eden were referred to in their theology as part of an "administration," instead of a covenant, there would be no conflict with Scripture, and would eliminate the confusion.

 

[Arial]

I guess I'm still not being clear. Biblically (Sola Scriptura) speaking, only seven "covenants" are presented in Scripture.
Any other covenants presented by man's theology do not have Biblical authority. They are simply his inventions which he finds useful to his theology.

And I am telling/showing you that is incorrect. You base that solely on the dispensation interpretation and view of biblical covenants.

We touch on thought processes again. And the restrictive aspect that is had on them when we decide we believe one thing to the point where it becomes next to impossible to see the thought processes that are contained within any other view but our own. The "art" of dispensations has so restrictively defined what the "seven" covenants are as to remove any possibility of the word have any root meaning. Therefore unless something stays within their parameters of the definition of covenant, their hard and fast loyalists are unable to see a covenant by true definition when it stares them in the face.

What you and they present as the only covenants is not sola scriptura. It is removing some of scripture in order to keep one's preferred and most popular eschatological views.

When you have studied, really studied, the covenants presented by Reformed theology, and checked it against sola scriptura, rather than sola dispensationalism, get back to me on it. And before you suggest that perhaps I should do the same concerning dispensationalism---I came out of that and it wasn't an easy escape, as it is so brainwashed into pretty much the entire church, that ones starts counting on things like the rapture, pre or mid to escape the stars falling out of the sky (and then returning), and famine, etc. etc. of the "last seven years!" instead of counting on the power of almighty God.

 

[Arial]

The law given to Adam is not stated in Scripture to be a covenant.
You presented Hos 6:7, which was translated from the Hebrew to: "Like Adam, they have broken the covenant--they were unfaithful to me there," in demonstration that the law given to Adam was indeed a covenant.

To which I responded with the fact that the Hebrew word used for "Adam" in Hos 6:7 can be correctly translated also as "At Adam," or "Like men,"
pointing out that the also-correct translation of "At Adam" was more consistent with the import of Hos 6:7 in its use of the word "there," which suggests a place, and also pointing out
the fact that there was a place named Adam at the Jordan, which was where they rebelled against going into Canaan and broke the covenant.

I concluded from the above facts that "At Adam" (the town) was the better correct translation of the correct three regarding Ho 6:7, for it agreed with other Scripture regarding Israel's rebellion and, therefore, Ho 6:7 did not present a covenant with Adam, but rather a town named Adam and,
thereby, did not demonstrate that the law given in Eden was a covenant.

Already been covered.

The real problem with Covenant theology is not its schemata, but its wrong use of the word "covenant," causing confusion with the Biblical record. If Eden were referred to in their theology as part of an "administration," instead of a covenant, there would be no conflict with Scripture, and would eliminate the confusion.

Are you sure about that? And where do you get this idea of "administration" from? Where is that in sola scriptura? There is a great deal of conflict within scripture in changing covenants into administrations.Redemption becomes administrative for one instead of covenantal. It is in covenant that His very faithfulness becomes our Rock and our Salvation, a very present help in trouble. God owes us nothing. He doesn't have to do one single thing for us, doesn't have to save a single person or His creation. He does so through entering into covenants with people and saying trust me. This is my covenant and your are my covenant people. In the OT God shows us how He treats His covenant people. Those profound trusting conversations between God and David we see would mean nothing to us, have no application to us, of God to us as our God, if it were not all grounded in covenant. In God we trust, because He makes covenants with us and He never breaks a covenant. He never lies. There is no shadow of turning with Him.

 

[Eleanor]

And I am telling/showing you that is incorrect. You base that solely on the dispensation interpretation and view of biblical covenants.

What part of "Scripture presents only seven covenants" are you not getting?

We touch on thought processes again. And the restrictive aspect that is had on them when we decide we believe one thing to the point where it becomes next to impossible to see the thought processes that are contained within any other view but our own.

Strawman.

This is not about "thought processes."
This is about what is and what is not actually stated in Scripture.

Scripture is my only source of God's truth; i.e., Sola Scriptura.
Scripture does not present a covenant with Adam.

Evidently, you are comfortable with adding to what Scripture presents.

In that case, what is our agreed-upon authority for God's truth.

 

[Eleanor]

Already been covered.

Are you sure about that? And where do you get this idea of "administration" from?

It is a word in agreement with the concept you are presenting.

Where is that in sola scriptura? There is a great deal of conflict within scripture in changing covenants into administrations.Redemption becomes administrative for one instead of covenantal.

Administration does not mean covenant, nor does it alter or extinguish covenants

Covenants are made during administrations, where covenants are still covenants, and administrations are still administrations.

 

[Arial]

It is a word in agreement with the concept you are presenting.

Huh?

Administration does not mean covenant, nor does it alter or extinguish covenants

Covenants are made during administrations, where covenants are still covenants, and administrations are still administrations.

No but it defines them and incorrectly by limiting them to parameters that are not biblical.

Define your usage of administration and give a biblical example, explaining why it is called an administration.

I know dispensationalism does not deny the covenants, it just puts them into a position other than the one they inhabit. Which is a framework upon which redemption is built and carried out. As well as the relational aspect of God with the creature, man, and His creation.

 

[Arial]

What part of "Scripture presents only seven covenants" are you not getting?

I do not misunderstand what you are saying. I posit it is incorrect. What part of scripture that reveals the eternal covenant of redemption established within the Godhead before creation, and reveals an Edenic covenant do you not understand?

It won't do any good to just keep repeating the seven covenants and covenant defined by dispensationalism to me. You have burned it into my brain with the repetition.

Covenant is a relationship with God as the King.

 

[Eleanor]

Huh?

No but it defines them and incorrectly by limiting them to parameters that are not biblical.

Define your usage of administration and give a biblical example, explaining why it is called an administration.

Good idea.

I don't use those terms, but as in:
the time from Adam to Moses could be called an administration according to conscience,
the time between Moses and the cross could be an administration according to law,
the NT could be an administration according to grace.

Maybe the Garden could be called an administration of innocence and trial by law.

I guess you would call them administrations because in these cases, they present how God's manner of judging righteousness.

If Scripture does not state administrations, they are man's observations. Which does not mean they are "wrong," but however man has set them up, they must be in accordance with Scripture to have credibility.

Covenants, which are specifically stated in Scripture, do not allow for additions.
An administration, not stated in Scripture, can be defined as man wishes to do so.
His notion would be as credible as its correspondence to Scripture.

But at least, there wouldn't be this confounding of Biblical covenants.

 

[Eleanor]

I do not misunderstand what you are saying. I posit it is incorrect. What part of scripture that reveals the eternal covenant of redemption established within the Godhead before creation, and reveals an Edenic covenant do you not understand?

If you are referring to Hos 6:7, the covenant there is not with Adam but with Israel, which they broke there at the place called Adam by refusing to go into Canaan.

It won't do any good to just keep repeating the seven covenants and covenant defined by dispensationalism to me. You have burned it into my brain with the repetition.

Covenant is a relationship with God as the King.

Were do we find that in the Noahic covenant?