You are not logged in.
I raised the issue of chaos if one refers to the Plan of Salvation as a Covenant. Note the same concept here:
Is There A Covenant Of Redemption?
We do not believe that it is wise to refer to God’s plan to save a people in eternity past as a “covenant.” But we do believe that our one God who is three co-equal and co-eternal persons did make a perfect plan that He would save a people from their sins. But if this plan is not called a covenant by the authors of Scripture, we must think twice about describing it by that name ourselves. The reason we should only use the word “covenant” to describe events in Scripture that are actually called covenants is because of the importance of the word “covenant” in Scripture and the place of prominence the concept has in our theological systems. The danger of calling something a covenant that Scripture does not refer to as a covenant increases the likelihood of making something a cornerstone of our theology that in fact is not an emphasis in Scripture. This of course would lead to an unbalanced and unbiblical theological system.
We want to be very clear. We are not saying that you always have to use biblical terms to describe biblical concepts (even when those concepts are foundational to our theological systems). The Bible never uses the term ‘person’ when referring to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, Christians are justified in this application because the concept of the personhood of the Holy Spirit is clear in Scripture. We find that we are forced to acknowledge the personhood of the Holy Spirit from the clear teaching of Scripture. The evidence in Scripture does not allow us to believe that the Holy Spirit is simply an impersonal force. Some of these evidences are actions of the Holy Spirit that are driven by purpose and intelligence as well as the fact that the authors of Scripture referred to the Spirit by using personal pronouns like “him” and “his.”
So the concept of the “personhood” of the Holy Spirit is an important doctrine although the term is never used to describe Him in Scripture. Thus, I think it can be a valid practice to understand a person or event in Scripture by using a term that Scripture does not in fact use to describe that person or event. The fundamental problem is not in assigning the word “covenant” to events in Scripture that Scripture itself does not call covenants, but rather the problem is the place you give those events in your theological system precisely because you designate them “covenants.” I think this happens very naturally because the term “covenant” in Scripture, unlike the term “person,” is a high profile and extremely important term. In Covenant Theology, the concept of covenant, whether it is the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, or the Covenant of Grace, is used to illustrate the continuity of Scripture and God’s work in salvation. But Scripture uses the term, almost without exception, to illustrate discontinuity.
In conclusion, while NCT does believe that the Bible teaches that our Trinitarian God has always had a sure plan to redeem His chosen people from their sins, we think it is best not to refer to that concept as a covenant because it can lead to confusion about the basic building blocks of Scripture.
Offline
If Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world -- a plan between Father and Son to save mankind; and Jesus is the center and focus of the promises given to Adam and Eve. And if Daniel states that Jesus will "confirm the covenant" by His sacrifice on Calvary ...
Aren't we talking about the same thing? As for terms, take your pick.
Offline
The Covenant being referred to was the OC. The Abrahamic Promise allowed the New Covenant to adopt the Gentiles. That is the point of the initial article, choas is created when the word "covenant" is used for the Plan of Salvation. The Bible doesn't, but preaches the Gospel as a composite of Covenants, OLD, NEW and Abrahamic Promise/Covenant. Never as an unbiblical Redemptive Covenant. That creates chaos. That teaches continuity when discontinuity happened at the cross. Your Redemptive Covenant was as eternal and everlasting as circumcision was. Although the Abrahamic Promise remains, it's circumcision becomes a heart circucision. Flesh cirumcision never was eternal, neither was the Sabbath, Christ became the True Rest in the New Covenant.
Offline