Who Owes Me Three Dollars?

February 11, 2007

Review

Filed under: Uncategorized — ineedsheetmusic @ 2:36 am

Before pressing on to the end, here is a quick summary of the 5 parts of the paper you have seen so far:

1) Intro and thesis statement – which was this: The best way to approach Scripture and more specifically systematic theology is through the lens of the covenant because God himself is a covenantal God.

2) Some definitions of the term covenant.

3) Introduction of the Covenant of redemption, which I assert is basically an intratrinitarian works covenant.

4) Showing the pledges (of work to be done) by each member of the trinity. Father – election of some individuals as a gift or inheritance to be given to the son. Son – fulfill the covenant of works. He promised to become a man, taking on his flesh and his nature. He promised to go to the cross as propitiation for the sins of those elect. Spirit – Bring the Son into existence as a man, anoint him with the result that Jesus has the Spirit without measure, inspires the writing of Scripture, affects regeneration and the sanctification of the elect, builds, guides and teaches the church.

5) A section from a Meredith Kline article on the covenant of redemption in Zechariah 6. Twenty-twenty hindsight says this should have been left out completely. When I put it in, I was trying to pad the paper. Ironically, in the end, I was trying to cull crap out

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. And where, might I ask, beside the application to Zech 6, did you prove that properly understanding the Bible means understanding it covenantally?

    I mean, sounds like it turned out to be a great paper, but it isn’t enough to prove your thesis to simply prove that God is a covenantal God. That in and of itself doesn’t PROVE the covenantal hermeneutic. Your thesis sets out to prove, defend, uphold a covenantal hermeneutic.

    So, assuming that you did show somehow that God being a covenantal God spills into his self revelation…ahem…where is it?

    E

    Comment by Echo_ohcE — February 12, 2007 @ 1:37 am

  2. “So, believe it or not, the next entry (part 7) will actually start the defense of my thesis. All the previous was basically filler.”

    Oh.

    E

    Comment by Echo_ohcE — February 12, 2007 @ 1:38 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: