No it was not. The answer asked for was a yes or no. You qualified your answer by going off topic.
As stated. To get a yes or no answer to my question.
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).
And the answer posted in Post 97 is, "No, they do not."
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.
The posts prove otherwise, so thank you for your time.
Question: Do two distinct types of covenant exist in Scripture? Answer given in post #92
The question of salvation is not a part of the question, therefore this is a qualified answer.
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.
Then I will expect not to read another post from you directed to me no matter what else I post.
Covenant theology was never the topic of the OP or the question.
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.
Apparently, that is not the case....
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.
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 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.
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.
Well, God must be true to Himself and His divine nature. He cannot not be righteous. He cannot not have aseity.
Hmmm.... yeah, okay. I can get behind that.
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!
We do not hold God to aseity. God Himself asserts His aseity.
That is incorrect.
No. That too is incorrect. God Himself states what He is and describes His nature in His word. It is not something we reasoned.
Irrelevant. Nothing I Posted should have been construed to be "what we see."
Decidedly.
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.
I read you wrong, to say that God cannot have aseity, which, of course, I disagree with.
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.
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.
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.
makesends said:
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.
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?
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.
Grace is a labor of Christ love called a work of His faithfulness in us . "Let there be" and the substance was "God alone good ".
In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey God’s law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith, which also means the the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of f grace and law. Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so it is also a covenant of grace and law. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God’s law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. So that concept is not found throughout Scripture, but rather it is an attack on the continuity found throughout Scripture by creating false divisions.
So........ not relevant. Got it.
Romans 4:4-5 KJV
The only way for someone to attain a character trait is through faith, but what it means for someone to attain a character trait is for them to become a doer of that trait. For example, the only way for someone to become courageous is through faith apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of courageous works in order to to earn it as the result, but it would be contradictory for someone to become courageous apart from becoming a doer of courageous works, and the same is true for righteousness and every other character trait. This is why the same faith by which we are declared righteous apart from works of the law does not abolish our need to be a doer of righteous works in obedience to God’s law, but rather our faith upholds it (Romans 3:28-31). In other words, everyone who has faith will be declared righteous and everyone who has faith is a doer of Gods law, which is how Paul can deny that we can earn our righteousness as the result of our works (Romans 4:1-5) while maintaining that only the doers of God’s law will be declared righteous (Romans 2:13).
