DavidM:There is an expression 'Analogia Entis'(analogy of being) that bares upon your own analogy of God's covenant w/all through Abraham and, that of the marriage covenant.I believe that you are making what's called a category mistake.Like Chevy Chase used to say: 'Hi, I'm Chevy Chase and, you're not'.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 30, 2004 20:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Toward a (biblical) Unilateral Covenant > Thanks, Bill. I find it much easier to accept what you are saying as you > explain more and more. I am not quite there yet to accept the term > "unilateral covenant" but I am working on it. I have a couple of questions > that might help me investigate this further. > > David Miller wrote: > >> Do you see fulfillment only as the > >> commencement of the covenant? > > Bill wrote: > > No, I do not. > > Exactly when was the covenant fulfilled in your view? Was it fulfilled when > God passed through the pieces, when Abraham circumcised himself and his > children, when Abraham offered Isaac upon the altar, when? > > Bill wrote: > > If we refuse Christ, we refuse to participate, > > and there is no mutual relationship. > > If there is no mutual relationship, then how can you continue to say that > there is a covenant? If I have no mutual relationship with my wife, then > there is no longer a marriage covenant between us. In like manner, the > person who refuses to participate has cut themselves off from the covenant, > haven't they? > > Bill wrote: > > As for the one who claims to be holy in > > the sense that he or she no longer sins, > > let me say, I view that as purely hypothetical > > in this life; in other words, I have yet to meet > > this person. > > This is exactly what concerns me. The temptation of the "unilateral > covenant view" is to sit back and not force into the kingdom of God. > Therefore, if the promises are not ever actually experienced, if the > remission of sins is not actually experienced in reality, then such will > always be viewed as being hypothetical. > > Bill wrote: > > ... let me go on to state that I do not believe > > people "have to" sin. The person who has not > > rejected Christ does not have to go on sinning. > > I am glad to see you profess this. Is there anyone who believes in the > unilateral covenant that has experienced the remission of his sins, and > experiences a holy life afterward? Or is the concept of holiness purely > theoretical and hypothetical, never actually experienced? > > Bill wrote: > > But my point was this: it is not the unilateral covenant > > that causes or entices or licenses a person to sin. > > In a certain way, we agree on this. Certainly the covenant itself, a > covenant of God, would not entice a person to sin. I am not talking about > the covenant itself, but I am concerned about our CONCEPT of the covenant. > How we understand the covenant offered to us might alter our behavior. > There are different ways in which we might view the covenant. You view it > to be unilateral, which means to me that there is no responsibility upon the > part of us, the recipients, to be faithful and true to the covenant. I am > concerned that a person who has this view might not press into the kingdom > of God. If the kingdom is not given to them as a free gift with nothing > that they have to do, they will likely overlook the kingdom of God and think > that salvation from the world system is all to expect. Furthermore, this > viewpoint would be one additional contributing factor that would weaken > their resolve to be true to the covenant they have with God. I'm not saying > that the viewpoint itself is the sole reason that they will sin, but rather > that it is another straw in the haypile that might tip the scales toward > sin. I view the temptation to sin to be very real and multifaceted. The > unilateral covenant viewpoint alone would not cause sin, but rather it could > be one factor that might contribute to a person not resisting temptation to > the point of the shedding of blood. > > Bill wrote: > > Just as Abraham could not fulfill > > the covenant, neither can you. > > What was happening when Abraham offered Isaac upon the altar? The Lord said > to him that it was because he had done this thing, because he had obeyed his > voice, that he was able to establish his covenant through him. > > Genesis 22:16-18 > (16) And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast > done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: > (17) That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply > thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea > shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; > (18) And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because > thou hast obeyed my voice. > > Bill wrote: > > And just as Abraham was not expected > > to fulfill the covenant, neither are you. > > But he was expected to fulfill his part of the covenant. For example: > > Genesis 17:10-14 > (10) This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy > seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. > (11) And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a > token of the covenant betwixt me and you. > (12) And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man > child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with > money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. > (13) He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, > must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an > everlasting covenant. > (14) And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not > circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my > covenant. > > Bill wrote: > > What Christ did in standing in, so to speak, > > for Abraham, he has done for you. You would > > do well to lighten up and listen on this one: > > if the fulfillment depends on your "everyday" > > activity, you're a wreck waiting to happen; > > you just don't know it yet. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "everyday activity." My perspective is that > anyone who is not circumcised in their heart is cut off from the covenant. > That is how I understand God's Word. The unilateral covenant view seems to > teach that whether we are circumcised in heart or not, it doesn't matter. > It is all up to God. > > Bill wrote: > > We are included in the covenant by way of > > our inclusion in Christ. When a person rejects > > Christ, he excludes himself. And so, I am not > > espousing universalism. > > Maybe this is primarily semantics, but exactly how can a person reject > Christ, and yet also be included in the unilateral covenant with Him? If > the covenant does not depend on anything he does, then his rejection of > Christ should not exclude him from the covenant. You say he excludes > himself, but he excludes himself from what? The blessings of the covenant? > If only the blessings, then he is still in covenant with God, but how can > anyone who rejects Christ be in covenant with Christ? This does not make > any logical sense to me. Can you try another way of explaining it? Does it > really appear logical to you? What am I overlooking? > > Bill wrote: > > You seem to view participation as that which > > gets and keeps you included in the covenant. > > No, that is not at all accurate. My participation had nothing to do with my > getting the covenant, but it does have something to do with my keeping the > covenant. Furthermore, I view my participation also on the part of God. I > am responsible to this Holy God, to do what he says, and to cooperate with > his working in my life to keep the covenant intact. But even in this, it is > not me that is keeping the covenant, but the Spirit of Christ within me. > > By way of analogy, the Israelites in the wilderness failed to possess the > promised land because they did not believe what God told them they needed to > do. They were at first afraid and apprehensive, and thought it impossible > to take Jericho. Up to this point, they had been passive participants in > God delivering them from Egypt. Now God was requiring them to become active > participants. They had to take up the sword and possess the land. When > they failed to respond in faith, the promised land was kept from them and > given to another generation. > > Bill wrote: > > I believe we participate because we are > > included in the covenant; > > So do I. > > Bill wrote: > > furthermore, we are kept there by Christ, > > not by our participation. > > I believe that Christ keeps us there by dynamically working within us and > enabling us to be worthy participants of the covenant. This is where > understanding the incarnation really kicks into high gear. > > Bill wrote: > > I hope this is helpful > > Yes, very much so. I'm sorry if it is difficult for you, but you are > helping me to think about this and sort out my understanding of the covenant > we have with God. Thanks for taking the time to patiently instruct me in > the spirit of meekness. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
