Archive for February 11th, 2008


 This discussion has went much further than I thought and I now realize that the word Covenant especially with the adjective New and Old attached to them differ greatly amongst many who visit this site. So far I have been on my own (my good friend Tyris has pulled a disappearing act on me but that is okay) and hopefully will have some help soon. However due to the comments making the post long I will continue the conversation in a new post.

 We have to start by defining what exactly a covenant means. If the word covenant means principle and not leagally binding then the word has been redefined from it’s original context. For example God made a covenant with Adam. He says “if you eat you will die”. Is this in principle or is it a literal legally binding contract between two parties. Adam ate and what happend. He died (though not immediately but we don’t have to go there I hope). So the next covenant was with Noah. God said “I will not destroy the world with water”. God has kept his covenant that he made with all mankind but which was conveyed to Noah. This covenant was unconditional in the sense that there was nothing man could do to break it. Next we have the Abrahamic Covenant.  This is the big one and has split Reformed Christians on either two sides (three if you count New Covenant guys) This again is unconditional. No conditions are set as it relates to the promises of God to Abraham. Next we have something called the Old Covenant, then the New Covenant. This is where my focus will be today.



Read Full Post »