Redemption Planned

by Don Kistler

In Reformed circles, we hear much about the covenants. We are a people who place our trust in God’s covenant faithfulness. We hear about the covenant of grace and the covenant of works, but we hear very little about the covenant of redemption. We also hear much about the saving work of Christ, but give little thought to the fact that the triune God conceived the work that the second person of the Trinity would do that would save sinners.

Simply stated, the covenant of redemption is a covenant God the Father made with God the Son before the foundation of the world was laid, that if the Son would offer Himself up as an offering for sin, the Father would give Christ all those for whom He would die as a love gift. The elect, then, are a gift from the Father to the Son for suffering and dying to redeem them.

God the Father chose from all eternity past, in His eternal and unchangeable decrees, to save some people. God the Son, from all eternity past, agreed to redeem those people from the fallen state that God ordained, from all eternity past, they would be in. If you ask why God ordained the fall of man and the sinful state into which he would go, the answer is that God ordained sin so that we would know Him in the fullness of His revelation of Himself. If God had not ordained sin, we would know Him only as the Creator; because God has ordained sin we can know Him as the Redeemer. Our knowledge of God is much more complete because of sin.

In Zechariah 6:13, this is referred to as a “counsel of peace … between them both,” that is, between the Father and the Son, between God and “the man whose name is the Branch” (v. 12). It is “the Lord of Hosts” who is speaking about the counsel of peace that will be between Himself and “the Branch.” When Christ speaks in John 17 of having been given people as a gift, He is praying to God, whom, He says, gave them. “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me” (John 17:6 kjv). The “thou” and the “thine” both refer to God the Father.
Continue reading

Discussing the Bible with Roman Catholics

TurretinFan writes…

John Lollard (which I presume is a psuedonym) has provided the following dialogue between a hypothetical truthseeker and a Roman Catholic:

Roman Catholic (RC): “Here, this book came from God. Read it and believe it.”

Truth Seeker (TS): “Okay! Hey, this book says X is true.”

RC: “What? Give me that!”

TS: “Right there, ‘X is true’.”

RC: “It doesn’t actually mean that. What it means is that X is false and Y is true.”

TS: “But, you said this book came from God?”

RC: “It did. But you should just listen to me, and not worry about what this book says.”

TS: “What? Why should I listen to you?”

RC: “Why, it says right there in the book, ‘the true believers’ – meaning me of course – ‘will never teach falsely’.”

TS: “But this book teaches X and you teach Y. Doesn’t that mean you do teach falsely?”

RC: “Look, I’m the one who gave you the book in the first place.”

TS: “Then thank you very much for the book that you claim came from God, please read it yourself and obey it.”

I have one criticism of this dialog, though. How many savvy Roman Catholics would suggest to a truth seeker to read and believe the Bible? Reading the Bible is not going to lead you Romeward, and I think most RC proselytizers realize that.

What does the Qur’an teach about the Bible?

Many Muslim apologists like to attack the Bible by claiming that the text has been tampered with and corrupted. Yet in doing so, they undermine the Qur’an which claims this is not the case at all. They cannot have it both ways. If they believe the Qur’an, then they must affirm that the text of the Bible has been preserved by God.

As Dr. James White has stated, “It is great to hear someone whose origins are from “the other side” of the divide confirming what we have been saying repeatedly in reference to this vital issue (i.e., he knows the Islamic sources from the inside though he is a convert). A full and complimentary study would be found in Gordon Nickel’s vital work from 2011, Narratives of Tampering in the Earliest Commentaries on the Qur’an (Brill). The brightest and best of our opponents in the Islamic world need to start realizing that walking the path charted by Ibn Khazem which leads you to walk next to agnostics and skeptics like Bart Ehrman leads inevitably to the destruction of your own faith and text. It is grossly inconsistent with not only your world-view, but with the Qur’an as well!”