Do a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace Exist?

[Arial]

Asked and answered.

No it was not. The answer asked for was a yes or no. You qualified your answer by going off topic.

Then what is the purpose of this post?

As stated. To get a yes or no answer to my question.

 

[Josheb]

No it was not. The answer asked for was a yes or no. You qualified your answer by going off topic.

Incorrect. I did both. I qualified the answer (see Post 92) because the question is invalid (and I explained how), and I also answered the question with a direct, simple, unqualified "No" (see Post 97).

The question was do the two types of covenants exist in the Bible? Yes or no?

And the answer posted in Post 97 is, "No, they do not."

As stated. To get a yes or no answer to my question.

That is not stated in the post. The purpose of the request is not stated. only the demand for a yes or no answer, which was provided in Posts 92 and 97.

Until the question do the two types of covenant exist in the Bible can be answered as requested with a yes or no answer, there is no more to be said.

Thank you for your time.

The posts prove otherwise, so thank you for your time.

 

[Arial]

Incorrect. I did both. I qualified the answer (see Post 92) because the question is invalid (and I explained how), and I also answered the question with a direct, simple, unqualified "No" (see Post 97).

Question: Do two distinct types of covenant exist in Scripture? Answer given in post #92

Not salvifically.

The question of salvation is not a part of the question, therefore this is a qualified answer.

The question was repeated. The answer in post #97

No, they do not. The phrases "covenant of grace," and "covenant of works" do not occur in the Bible.

The question was not do the phrases exist in the Bible but do the TYPES of covenants exist.
The purpose was stated in post #91 that began this particular conversation.

Thank you for your time. Defending and showing a defense is invalid has been established. There is no need for any more to be said.

 

[Josheb]

The question was not do the phrases exist in the Bible but do the TYPES of covenants exist.

Yes, and the answer to that question is, "No, they is not." Two types of covenants do not exist in the Bible relevant to Covenant Theology. The subsequent commentary is addendum to the answer. The question asked was answered AND additional comment was posted.

Thank you for your time. Defending and showing a defense is invalid has been established. There is no need for any more to be said.

Then I will expect not to read another post from you directed to me no matter what else I post.

 

[Arial]

relevant to Covenant Theology.

Covenant theology was never the topic of the OP or the question.

Then I will expect not to read another post from you directed to me no matter what else I post.

Does that mean shut up? LMHTLW syndrome? That is a set of two questions, not a post about the poster. I will expect not to read another post from YOU directed to me no matter what I post.

 

[Josheb]

Thank you for your time. Defending and showing a defense is invalid has been established. There is no need for any more to be said.

Apparently, that is not the case....

Covenant theology was never the topic of the OP or the question.

Is there another theology that teaches the bi-covenant concepts of the covenant of grace and covenant of works? If so, then please do enlighten me. Otherwise, a person cannot ask whether a covenant of works and a covenant of grace exist in the Bible and not be referring to Covenant Theology.

Does that mean shut up? LMHTLW syndrome? That is a set of two questions, not a post about the poster.

Of course it does not mean to shut up. It means what was posted is taken to be a true and correct as stated.

I will expect not to read another post from YOU directed to me no matter what I post.

I did not claim there was nothing more to say. There is a lot more to relevant content that could be posted in reply to this op. Entire books have been written about the validity and strength/weaknesses of the covenants of grace and works and their existence in the Bible. I will abide by Rule 6 of the forum's rules and address the issue or specified subject or topic without making derogatory personal remarks.

 

[makesends]

There are no such conditions in scripture. That's also a misconstruction of the covenant of grace. God acted covenantally without conditions. Logically and scripturally no conditions can apply to the Creator other than those ontologically necessary

I agree completely. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are none ontologically necessary, except as WE need there to be in order to maintain a coherent notion of God. HE is not bound by his nature. He only IS according to his nature.

 

[Josheb]

I agree completely. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are none ontologically necessary...

Well, God must be true to Himself and His divine nature. He cannot not be righteous. He cannot not have aseity.

HE is not bound by his nature. He only IS according to his nature.

Hmmm.... yeah, okay. I can get behind that.

 

[makesends]

Well, God must be true to Himself and His divine nature. He cannot not be righteous. He cannot not have aseity.

Aseity is no less valid a notion concerning God, as far as I know, than anything else we hold him to. His Ontology is what WE need him to be for the sake of our understanding —he is not bound by it. It is (from our reasoning) what he IS, not what he decides to be. What we see is a product of who/what he is, and not defining him. But that's a poor way to say it. There's not a creature in the universe that can put a handle on God's ontology. Stinkin' words!

Hmmm.... yeah, okay. I can get behind that.

 

[Josheb]

Aseity is no less valid a notion concerning God, as far as I know, than anything else we hold him to.

We do not hold God to aseity. God Himself asserts His aseity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM."

Isaiah 44:6
This is what the LORD says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of armies: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure."

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

It's not up to us to assign, hold Him to, or decide whether it's true or we're going to believe it.

His Ontology is what WE need him to be for the sake of our understanding

That is incorrect.

It is (from our reasoning) what he IS, not what he decides to be.

No. That too is incorrect. God Himself states what He is and describes His nature in His word. It is not something we reasoned.

What we see is a product of who/what he is, and not defining him.

Irrelevant. Nothing I Posted should have been construed to be "what we see."

But that's a poor way to say it.

Decidedly.

There's not a creature in the universe that can put a handle on God's ontology. Stinkin' words!

Again, that is incorrect. God invented words. God used words to reveal Himself. God revealed Himself with and intent the revelation by known and understood. If nothing He revealed can be known and understood the God is a fool, discussion boards are useless, and none of us have any business wasting our time with either.

 

[makesends]

Josheb said:
Well, God must be true to Himself and His divine nature. He cannot not be righteous. He cannot not have aseity.

We do not hold God to aseity. God Himself asserts His aseity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM."

Isaiah 44:6
This is what the LORD says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of armies: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
Isaiah 46:9-10
Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, "My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure."

Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

It's not up to us to assign, hold Him to, or decide whether it's true or we're going to believe it.

I read you wrong, to say that God cannot have aseity, which, of course, I disagree with.

No doubt I have a problem explaining myself, but I do have a point. Let me try again.

Starting with Aseity: Since now, I am glad to see, you did not have some off-the-wall reason to deny it, or some clever way to put the matter that you did not share, I'm telling you that I was trying to defend it, in some respect. I am not arguing whether God has Aseity. I'm saying that WE invented the word, to put a handle to the idea of God's utter independence and self-existence. Honestly, I think it is just us trying to register the utter 'otherness' of God to our limited minds. He does not accommodate our framework. He is himself, and the rest of us, at best, do the best we can to talk accurately about it.

makesends said:
His Ontology is what WE need him to be for the sake of our understanding

That is incorrect.

We made up the word, Ontology. It is OUR representation of OUR thinking of what a thing is. It is not what the thing is. It is only us talking about it. To make it as plain as I can about what I mean, he doesn't "have" Ontology. Ontology is what it is because he IS. "He does not answer to form" applies to more than just physical shape.

makesends said:
It is (from our reasoning) what he IS, not what he decides to be.

No. That too is incorrect. God Himself states what He is and describes His nature in His word. It is not something we reasoned.

I guess I wasn't clear enough for you. I don't disagree that "God Himself states what He is and describes His nature in His word. It is not something we reasoned." Let me try again. We reason, and suppose and describe. It —what WE think of as his ontology— is OUR reasoning and assessing, and not something he must match. He is, and we talk about it. But we are pretty doggone ignorant.

makesends said:
What we see is a product of who/what he is, and not defining him.

Irrelevant. Nothing I Posted should have been construed to be "what we see."

You wish! Would we were all so clearly accurate, unbiased and un-entrenched in our temporal understandings! But I am not criticizing what you said, though I did, when I read it wrong.

Decidedly.

makesends said:
There's not a creature in the universe that can put a handle on God's ontology. Stinkin' words!

Again, that is incorrect. God invented words. God used words to reveal Himself. God revealed Himself with and intent the revelation by known and understood. If nothing He revealed can be known and understood the God is a fool, discussion boards are useless, and none of us have any business wasting our time with either.

Here you go again. I didn't say we can know and understand nothing God revealed. God did indeed reveal himself and intend that revelation to be know and understood. I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying we are a long way from fully understanding what he said, and we've talked 6000 years and still don't have it all. And I am saying that WE throw our stupid notions at what we try to understand, and organize our thoughts, and don't even know we are speculating.

God can say, "Almighty". And we can borrow the word, but we don't know the half of it. But we sure do throw a lot of words at it!

Do you agree with "God's Transcendence"? I mean, is that a valid attribution? Is it only valid about certain things, and the rest of it we have down, or, at least, YOU do? Of course we don't!

 

[Josheb]

I read you wrong, to say that God cannot have aseity, which, of course, I disagree with.

No doubt I have a problem explaining myself, but I do have a point. Let me try again...................

Relevance?

Do you agree with "God's Transcendence"? I mean, is that a valid attribution?

I would like to know how this is relevant to the existence of covenants of works and grace before I answer.

 

[makesends]

Relevance?

I would like to know how this is relevant to the existence of covenants of works and grace before I answer.

Hah! Shifting the goalposts BACK, are we?

Yeah, I am prone to chasing rabbits. Ok. It's a nitpicking argument anyway.

 

[Josheb]

Hah! Shifting the goalposts BACK, are we?

Yeah, I am prone to chasing rabbits. Ok. It's a nitpicking argument anyway.

No. Just sincerely wondering if the post has any relevance to the op after finally realizing the digression and no longer willing to participate out of respect for the op. In the absence of any op-relevance, I trust my departure from the digression will be understood as appropriate.