M
mannysee
Guest
The more I think about this often seen phrase, I am beginning to grow in my conviction that this is a stamp of covenantal language.
Would this be correct?
Would this be correct?
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The more I think about this often seen phrase, I am beginning to grow in my conviction that this is a stamp of covenantal language.
Would this be correct?
I'm not sure what you mean. I suppose the "in Christ," "in Him," "in God" language seems a bit obscure to most of us thinking in Euclidean geometry terms, or perhaps more so to those of us whose culture accents individualism and egalitarianism as opposed to collectivist and authoritarian aspects of humanity. Even so, human analogies in the end may not be expected to capture entirely the significance of the relationship between the those in Christ and Christ.
There does seem to be an aspect that is at least analogous to a spacial concept. Those in Christ are located in Christ in some way(s). The relationship also seems to imply a representative headship of Christ over and on behalf of those in Him. This latter in particular seems almost tangibly consistent with ideas of covenant, although the terms for "in Christ" do not always necessarily and overtly draw the connection.
dan p said:Paul is a Dispensationalist , Eph 3:2 .[/QUOTE
LOL!![]()
In Ephesians 2 alone, Paul speaks of 3 dispensations. IMHO that does make him a dispensationalists.
In Eph. 2:11, 12, he speaks of TIMES PAST, ie.e how things were in the past.
In vs. 13 he speaks of BUT NOW, as they are today.
In vs. 7 he speaks of THE AGES TO COME. When God brings everything to fruition.
If one does not believe that circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other Jewish requirements, are for today, then that one is also a dispensationalists.
The more I think about this often seen phrase, I am beginning to grow in my conviction that this is a stamp of covenantal language.
Would this be correct?
The more I think about this often seen phrase, I am beginning to grow in my conviction that this is a stamp of covenantal language.
Would this be correct?
Those who are "in Christ" are believers, saved by the blood of Christ.
Was Abraham "in Christ"? Abraham had a covenant with God but Christ wasn't a part of that covenant.
Was Paul "in Christ"? Yes.
The existence of dispensations of God's grace is accepted by covenantalists. The question is which rules ... rule -- wiping out rules and rebuilding them with each dispensation, or covenants that successively fulfill stipulations of other covenants -- or remain in force.In Ephesians 2 alone, Paul speaks of 3 dispensations. IMHO that does make him a dispensationalists.
These are completely different from the normal dispensations people talk about.In Eph. 2:11, 12, he speaks of TIMES PAST, ie.e how things were in the past.
In vs. 13 he speaks of BUT NOW, as they are today.
In vs. 7 he speaks of THE AGES TO COME. When God brings everything to fruition.
So there's no opposition left in dispensationalism? Covenantalists don't believe that the requirements are for today, that they've been fulfilled by the Greater Elements to which they originally pointed and promised, and they were then fulfilled by,If one does not believe that circumcision, animal sacrifices, and other Jewish requirements, are for today, then that one is also a dispensationalists.
The more I think about this often seen phrase, I am beginning to grow in my conviction that this is a stamp of covenantal language.
Would this be correct?
I don't think so. Being in Christ just means you are saved.
Those who are "in Christ" are believers, saved by the blood of Christ.
Was Abraham "in Christ"? Abraham had a covenant with God but Christ wasn't a part of that covenant.
Was Paul "in Christ"? Yes.
I don't think so. Being in Christ just means you are saved.
The more I think about this often seen phrase, I am beginning to grow in my conviction that this is a stamp of covenantal language.
Would this be correct?