Covenants [Archive] - Christian Forums

View Full Version : Covenants

Hedgehog

25th June 2006, 02:33 AM

To further my own personal understanding, I need to have a better grip on exactly what the covenants are and what they mean/represent.
I would like to hear anyones ideas that they have.

First ( for me lol) lets establish what a covenant is, Dictionary.com says:

cov·e·nant

1. A binding agreement; a compact.
2. Law.
1. A formal sealed agreement or contract.
2. A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
3. In the Bible, God's promise to the human race.

Ok, so a covenant is a binding agreement and God's promise to mankind, right?

Do I have that basic fact straight?

If there are 2 covenants, then what are the 2 promises from God? What was the promise under the old? What is the promise under the new?

The only eternal promises I can think of are that if you are unsaved, your wages are death. If you are saved, you have eternal life.

I have some ideas.

Im wondering if the old covenant represents unsaved, and the new covenant represents saved.Like the old man and the new man?

Does the Bible ever mention anything good about the old covenant?

It does say if the old covenant didnt have fault, there wouldnt have been a reason to have the new.
Can something from God have fault?
If your going to say the fault was with man, well then, mankind is who partakes in the new covenant also, is there room for fault in the new covenanrt also, and is there need for a 3rd?

This means they would be 2 concepts that have forever ran concurrantly.

Here are a couple questions I have/things I wonder:

1)Are there only 2 covenants? Old and new?

2)Some people believe there are more covenants, right? But are they the same covenants, just different names/people involved? or totally different.

3)Exactly what are the old and new covenants? Where is the scripture that tells what they are?

4)Was the old covenant given by God? Did it have anything to do with God?

5)Was the old covenant seen as a positive thing?

What do the scriptures say about the covenants?

It says that the old is a schoolmaster and once faith is there, the new is implimented.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

People could have faith at any time though, right?
Abraham had faith.
Once his faith came, was he no longer under a schoolmaster, even though the law had not yet been written?

Im wondering if the concepts are that, the law points out sin, under the old covenant, and its a schoolmaster, who shows you just how sinful you are........but once you have faith......and turn to the Lord......the veil is taken away and you understand and realize the truth... you are saved..

But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 2 Cor 3:12-16

What covenant is this?

Isa 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

Isa 28:18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

It seems like the covenant from God is one covenant. One eternal covenant.
Not two.

Psa 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,

Psa 89:28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

Psa 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word [which] he commanded to a thousand generations.

Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of David.

What does it say about the new covenant?

Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It points out that it will be written on your heart.
Well we know that its your heart that matters and once you are saved the idea is that you will have a new heart/live Christ-like... so ANYONE who is saved would have Gods law written on their heart, right?

Its like so many of the concepts point to the same thing; being a better person,living Christ like after you're saved.

Baptism: washed of your sins, go under the water a sinner, come out saved.

Circumcision: cut off the flesh(sinful actions)

Old man/new man: kill the old sinful man, live a new Christlike life.

same as the old covenant/ new covenant:
Old covenant: stoney heart/before faith
New covenant: flesh heart/after faith

Any thoughts?

billwald

27th June 2006, 01:22 PM

Analyze the covenants for yourself as if they were contracts, which they are. Exatly who are the parties involved? What are the obligations of each party? Are there unilateral and bilateral obligations? Conditional and unconditional? When is the contract fulfilled/ended?

calmcoolandelected

27th June 2006, 01:29 PM

ddub85

27th June 2006, 05:47 PM

@ hedgehog

Covenants
To further my own personal understanding, I need to have a better grip on exactly what the covenants are and what they mean/represent.
I would like to hear anyones ideas that they have.
First ( for me lol) lets establish what a covenant is, Dictionary.com says:
cov·e·nant
1. A binding agreement; a compact.
2. Law.
1. A formal sealed agreement or contract.
2. A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
3. In the Bible, God's promise to the human race.
Ok, so a covenant is a binding agreement and God's promise to mankind, right?
Do I have that basic fact straight?
If there are 2 covenants, then what are the 2 promises from God? What was the promise under the old? What is the promise under the new?

If you read closely, you'll see that the New Covenant promises nothing new in terms of substance. The only thing that is "new" is a change in the people.

The only eternal promises I can think of are that if you are unsaved, your wages are death. If you are saved, you have eternal life.

And let's not forget the eternal promises to the nation of Israel.

I have some ideas.
Im wondering if the old covenant represents unsaved, and the new covenant represents saved.Like the old man and the new man?

No, I don't think so. The Old Covenant saves both Jew and Gentile, while the New Covenant fulfills God's promise to the Jews.

Does the Bible ever mention anything good about the old covenant?

The Old Covenant is good, as it brings grace to all saved people. Without it, how could Christ save us? We're saved under the Old Covenant.

It does say if the old covenant didnt have fault, there wouldnt have been a reason to have the new.

The fault with the Old Covenant is the people under it.

Can something from God have fault?

We're from God, and we have fault. As a matter of fact, everything created from God is less than God, and has fault I believe.

If your going to say the fault was with man, well then, mankind is who partakes in the new covenant also, is there room for fault in the new covenanrt also, and is there need for a 3rd?

With a new mind, the law in your heart and inward parts, the problem with fault would be internally solved.

This means they would be 2 concepts that have forever ran concurrantly.

Here are a couple questions I have/things I wonder:
1)Are there only 2 covenants? Old and new?

No.

2)Some people believe there are more covenants, right? But are they the same covenants, just different names/people involved? or totally different.

They serve different purposes.

3)Exactly what are the old and new covenants? Where is the scripture that tells what they are?

Old- Gen. 12:1-3. New- Jer. 31:31-34.

4)Was the old covenant given by God? Did it have anything to do with God?

It was given by God to all of mankind and gives every man the opportunity to come to God.

5)Was the old covenant seen as a positive thing?

It IS a positive thing, as it brings grace to us. Is it seen as a positive thing? I guess that would depend on who you ask.

What do the scriptures say about the covenants?

That the old includes all, and the new is for the Jews.

It says that the old is a schoolmaster and once faith is there, the new is implimented.

No, it doesn't say that. It says the LAW, not the Old Covenant, is our schoolmaster. It says the law isn't the Old Covenant.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
People could have faith at any time though, right?

Yes, but faith in what? Only faith in Christ saves.

Abraham had faith.

So true. Therefore, we can be sure that the law wasn't the Old Covenant, and faith the New Covenant, as Abraham was given the Old Covenant.

Once his faith came, was he no longer under a schoolmaster, even though the law had not yet been written?

He was never under the schoolmaster known as the law. The law came 430 years after he was given grace. He knew Christ (Jhn. 8:58).

Im wondering if the concepts are that, the law points out sin, under the old covenant, and its a schoolmaster, who shows you just how sinful you are........but once you have faith......and turn to the Lord......the veil is taken away and you understand and realize the truth... you are saved..

Amen!
But be aware that faith and grace was with man before the law.

But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 2 Cor 3:12-16

The veil, the law, is out of the way, and what remains is grace, as promised to both Jew and Gentile under the Old Covenant.

What covenant is this?

Isa 28:15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
Isa 28:18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
It seems like the covenant from God is one covenant. One eternal covenant.
Not two.

If yu will look at the differences in the two covenants, you willl see NO CHANGE in the covenant itself. The only change is to the people, not the substance of the covenant.

Psa 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
Psa 89:28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Psa 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word [which] he commanded to a thousand generations.
Isa 55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, [even] the sure mercies of David.
What does it say about the new covenant?
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
It points out that it will be written on your heart.
Well we know that its your heart that matters and once you are saved the idea is that you will have a new heart/live Christ-like... so ANYONE who is saved would have Gods law written on their heart, right?

No. The New Covenant specifically states that when the law is written on your heart, you have no need to be taught the word of God, as you will already know it. That simply doesn't describe ANYONE on earth today that I know of.

Its like so many of the concepts point to the same thing; being a better person,living Christ like after you're saved.
Baptism: washed of your sins, go under the water a sinner, come out saved.
Circumcision: cut off the flesh(sinful actions)
Old man/new man: kill the old sinful man, live a new Christlike life.

Amen.

same as the old covenant/ new covenant:
Old covenant: stoney heart/before faith
New covenant: flesh heart/after faith

I disagree. For starters, the Bible tells us that the Old Covenant is for everyone, and the New Covenant is for the Jews.

Any thoughts?

I think you ask some great questions. I hope to hear some answers from many in this forum on this very important point.

God Bless!

calmcoolandelected

28th June 2006, 10:32 AM

Hi Hedgehog,

I'm pressed for time right now and will try to post a response later. In the meantime, I thought I would recommend a great book called, "Christ of the Covenants" by O. Palmer Robertson.

CC&E
I have some out of town company coming this afternoon, but I did find this article with a little description of what is in O. Palmer Robertson's book that I thought you might enjoy reading.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonOverviewRobertsonsBookChrist.htm

Rhetor

21st July 2006, 09:37 AM

Dear Hedgehog

You are discussing one of the more complex topics in theology, so good luck. I'll do what I can to help.

To begin, your analysis of the word Covenant missed a lot. In the OT, the word is berith, and in the NT, the word is diatheke. I will concentrate on the greek - NT diatheke. This word is translated covenant or testiment, two different meanings. A covenant is a deal or pact, but a testament is a will, as in 'the last will and testiment of John Smith, esq.'. The word in your bible can mean either - a sworn deal or a promise of inheritance. For this latter see particularly Heb 9:16-17 where the New Covenant/Testament is viewed as one.

The best way to see Covenants is that there are two real deals running through the bible - usually titled The Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Grace. The first (Works) is to all people, and says 'if you live perfectly you and your offspring will deserve heaven'. Adam was offered this deal and failed, so we are guilty in him; we are offered this deal and fail, so we are guilty ourselves; and Christ was offered this deal, and obeyed, so he (as a man) deserves heaven, as do all his descendants. In contrast the second (Grace) is the deal where Christ promises to adopt all those who trust in him for salvation, and thus, the faithful being his descendants, they are saved by his obedience, which has been offered to them since Eden.
The crucial idea of the Bible is that one is under one or more schemes of inheritance - that all inherit death in Adam, but some then inherit pardon and salvation in Christ. This second inheritance is freely promised to the faithful, and all are exhorted to convert to faith and thus be saved.

Note that both these covenants occur repeatedly throughout the Bible - God demands obedience and promises rewards for it, yet also tells all that they have failed and offers mercy to those who trust in him. The many historical covenants in scripture are instances of these two deals - God asking for obedience and god offering mercy. Thus often the Gospel can be spoken of as the promise/the promises/a covenant/the covenants/an inheritance/the good news without contradiction.

Not all promises are totally concerned merely (!) about the gospel. Many additional aspects surround God's dealings with men, such as demands for certain forms of behavior and/or worship at certain times, and the human response promising to obey God. Often the Bible will use shorthand for these various administrations, identifying them by the historial covenant agreement that instigated such eras. For example, often the Mosaic dispensation is referred to as being under moses, as being the mosaic covenant, or as being the law(of moses). The New Covenant / Old Covenant distinction is a historical distinction between those who inherited a covenant regulating outward behavior from Moses and those who inherited it directly from Christ. It is important because it distinguishes between two types of administration for God's people. Yet at the same time the promises of God are one - the reality of the promise of grace is the same to Abraham, Moses, David, and us. Only rules regulating outward behavior changed. The Law/Gospel distinction is a often a distinction between these two covenants, or often a distinction between those who trust in their obedience to God's commands (the covt of works) verses those who trust in Christ's promise (the covt of grace) ie Christians.

As an endnote I don't think O.P.Robinson really knows what he is talking about in Christ of the Covenants. I suggest Louis Berkhof or R.L.Dabney as good Reformed reading on the topic.

Hope I helped somewhat.

Jerrysch

2nd September 2006, 09:46 PM

Jerrysch

2nd September 2006, 10:03 PM

If there are 2 covenants, then what are the 2 promises from God? What was the promise under the old? What is the promise under the new?

Any thoughts?

Actually there is no less than six. I shall list (some of ) them.

The Covenant given to Noah Gen 6

The Covenant given to Abraham Gen 15

The Mosiac Covenant Ex 24 (and others)

The Davidic Covenant 2 Samuel 7 &23

The New covenant Jer 31:31

Jerrysch

2nd September 2006, 10:04 PM

The only eternal promises I can think of are that if you are unsaved, your wages are death. If you are saved, you have eternal life.

Any thoughts?

Actually these are not covenants at all.

All the covenants are eternal other than the Mosiac Covenant (of those I listed).

Jerrysch

2nd September 2006, 10:06 PM

I have some ideas.

Im wondering if the old covenant represents unsaved, and the new covenant represents saved.Like the old man and the new man?

Does the Bible ever mention anything good about the old covenant?

Any thoughts?

Which covenant do you refer to as the Old Covenant?

Warri0rPoet

13th September 2006, 04:37 PM

First, a covenent is a deep promise or contract between two parties. The first covenent that God made was with Moses and the nation of Israel. Basically the entire book of Leviticus is laying down the conditions of the agreement. If the Israelites would follow God's laws he would be with and sheperd them. The problem is that the nation of Israel continually broke thier side of the agreement. Look at the entire book of Judges, it is about how they sin against God, they fall out of the covenent, fall into bondage and then cry out to God for deliverence. And because he is a merciful God he raises up a judge or leader to lead them out of bondage. Eventually the old covenent is pretty much completely lost by the nation of Israel, save a few prophets. If you read Isaiah 31:31-34 it basically lays out what the old and new covenents are. The old covenent was that of the law. The new covenant is that of Jesus christ. The old covenant was only ended by the death of Christ (death was the only way to end a covenant). And the new covenant where the law and will of God is placed in our minds and in our hearts was sealed by Jesus's blood (historically covenants were sealed by blood). When Christ rose from the dead he brought a new level of communion with God. We can know God/Jesus in our minds and in our hearts because he is alive today and he sealed the covenant so that even though we may not walk perfect before God, he accepts us as his own. The New Covenant is the Good news. Covenant means Testament right? The Old Testament is about the old Covenant and the New Testament is all about Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. I hope that you have received what I have written and if you need more clarification let me know, but you asked just the right question to get what the entire Bible is all about.
-Luke

ddub85

19th September 2006, 11:08 PM

@ Warri0rPoet

First, a covenent is a deep promise or contract between two parties.
The first covenent that God made was with Moses and the nation of Israel.
Actually, that wasn't the first covenant. For instance, the covenant made with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) preceded it.

Basically the entire book of Leviticus is laying down the conditions of the agreement. If the Israelites would follow God's laws he would be with and sheperd them. The problem is that the nation of Israel continually broke thier side of the agreement.

But let's not forget that God promised to execute the covenant regardless of what anyone did. The covenant wasn't ratified with man, it was a covenant ratified with God, by God (Gen 15:17).

Look at the entire book of Judges, it is about how they sin against God, they fall out of the covenent, fall into bondage and then cry out to God for deliverence. And because he is a merciful God he raises up a judge or leader to lead them out of bondage. Eventually the old covenent is pretty much completely lost by the nation of Israel, save a few prophets. If you read Isaiah 31:31-34 it basically lays out what the old and new covenents are. The old covenent was that of the law.

No, the Old Covenant is not the law. The law came 430 years after the Old Covenant (Gal 3:17).

The new covenant is that of Jesus christ. The old covenant was only ended by the death of Christ...

Where does the Bible say the Old Covenant ended?

... (death was the only way to end a covenant). And the new covenant where the law and will of God is placed in our minds and in our hearts was sealed by Jesus's blood (historically covenants were sealed by blood). When Christ rose from the dead he brought a new level of communion with God. We can know God/Jesus in our minds and in our hearts because he is alive today and he sealed the covenant so that even though we may not walk perfect before God, he accepts us as his own. The New Covenant is the Good news. Covenant means Testament right? The Old Testament is about the old Covenant and the New Testament is all about Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

What are the changes between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? What are the differences?

God Bless!

LittleLambofJesus

22nd September 2006, 12:50 AM

What are the changes between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? What are the differences?

God Bless!One brings "Death" the other brings "Life". :)

Isaiah 28:18 Your covenant with Death will be atoned, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing Scourgepasses through,.........Reve 16: 21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, [each hailstone] about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the Scourge of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.

ddub85

22nd September 2006, 06:28 AM

@ LittleLamb

One brings "Death" the other brings "Life".
Isaiah 28:18 Your covenant with Death will be atoned, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing Scourgepasses
through,........

So... Israel's covenant with God, the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 12:1-3, was a covenant with death? An agreement with Sheol? I think not. This verse isn't speaking about this covenant.

God Bless!

heymikey80

22nd September 2006, 08:36 AM

@ LittleLamb

So... Israel's covenant with God, the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 12:1-3, was a covenant with death? An agreement with Sheol? I think not. This verse isn't speaking about this covenant.

God Bless!
Of course not, it's talking about the Old Covenant of Moses."Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone [what covenant is carved in stone?], came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face [what covenant was delivered with the glowing face of Moses?] because of its glory, which was being brought to an end" 2 Cor 3:7
And of course, it's the covenant that's called "old"."For to this day, when they read the old covenant" 2 Cor 3:14
Abraham's not mentioned here in 2 Corinthians 3. It's an imaginary fabrication to say it is. Your case is lacking. Your opinion is not the Biblical statement here, and has not been concluded from the Biblical data.

ddub85

24th September 2006, 12:31 PM

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
@ LittleLamb
So... Israel's covenant with God, the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 12:1-3, was a covenant with death? An agreement with Sheol? I think not. This verse isn't speaking about this covenant.

Of course not, it's talking about the Old Covenant of Moses.

The Old Covenant of Moses? So you just ignore the covenant that was previously established? You just neglect that covenant, and skip right to Moses, and claim that it is the Old Covenant? Deceptive at best. For
shame.

"Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone [what covenant is carved in stone?], came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face [what covenant was delivered with the glowing face of Moses?] because of its glory, which was being brought to an end" 2 Cor 3:7
And of course, it's the covenant that's called "old"."For to this day, when they read the old covenant" 2 Cor 3:14

So in Gal 3:17, when it says "the covenant", what covenant is being spoken of in your opinion? And do we just ignore and neglect that covenant? Do we act as if it doesn't even exist? Do we pretend it doesn't count? (Unbelievable!).
Abraham's not mentioned here in 2 Corinthians 3. It's an imaginary fabrication to say it is. Your case is lacking. Your opinion is not the Biblical statement here, and has not been concluded from the Biblical data.
2Cr 3:11 For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.
Then what REMAINS? It can't be the New Covenant that REMAINS, as, even according to you, it wasn't there yet. So... what REMAINS? Huh?

It's obvious. It's the Abrahamic Covenant, the Old Covenant.

God Bless!

ddub85

24th September 2006, 12:35 PM

@ heymikey

Of course neither Greek word is a good replacement for "inaugurate", as you must know if you're familiar with them. The first is essentially "accomplish", which holds the meaning of completion and ending that the Apostle doesn't mean: the context calls for a beginning, not an ending.
Exactly! And so what was begun? Christ brought (OBTAINED!) grace to all, Jew and Gentile alike. What was ended? The law prevented those under it from obtaining grace under the Old Covenant. When the law came into effect, grace could not abound. When Christ removed the weight of the law, grace could abound. He brought that grace to those under the law, and to us Gentiles as well. We were included in that.
The second refers explicitly to law, and so doesn't fit what the Apostle is referring to: indestructible promises.
And this is another thing you don't seem to quite understand. The law is an indestructible promise. The law is at the very center of the New Covenant.

And so the Apostle doesn't use them. He can't. They don't carry the meaning of a covenant newly established on promises which are greater than what was accomplished before, which of course is a running theme
in Hebrews.

What you're neglecting is the FACT that one was obtained, and the other was established. Both things were accomplished with the blood of Christ. The covenant to Abraham didn't fail, nor disappear without
completion. That promise INCLUDES Gentiles, while the New Covenant NEVER includes Gentiles.

The word he does use does put the New Covenant into effect, establishing it anew as a covenant then 2000 years ago.

Now that's pretty bizarre, considering that he never said it was in effect, that he used a DIFFERENT word in the same statement, which means less than in effect as compared to the other word, and that he later says the Old Covenant is still in effect. What you're saying just simply doesn't add up.

And so it is in effect, even today. egkainizo puts the covenant newly into effect. It's what the word means. =shrug=

And so what does tugchano do? If egkainizo puts in effect, what does tugchano do? And why did the writer use these two DIFFERENT words in the same statement? Why did he separate the two covenants? Why did he use two different words to speak about the two different covenants? You know why. Anyone who thinks logically, and is honest knows why.

God Bless!

heymikey80

28th September 2006, 10:50 PM

So in Gal 3:17, when it says "the covenant", what covenant is being spoken of in your opinion? And do we just ignore and neglect that covenant? Do we act as if it doesn't even exist? Do we pretend it doesn't count? (Unbelievable!).
Nope, and as you've answered with exclamations, you're prejudicing your response.
the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. Gal 3:17
The covenant previously ratified is the covenant with Abraham -- which is fulfilled to Christ inaugurating the New Covenant. But it's not "the Old Covenant", which is clearly Moses. 2 Cor 3:14-16:
until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
It's obvious. It's the Abrahamic Covenant, the Old Covenant.
It's painfully clear that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the Old Covenant.

ddub85

29th September 2006, 11:59 AM

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
So in Gal 3:17, when it says "the covenant", what covenant is being spoken of in your opinion? And do we just ignore and neglect that covenant? Do we act as if it doesn't even exist? Do we pretend it doesn't count? (Unbelievable!).

Nope, and as you've answered with exclamations, you're prejudicing your response. the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not
invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. Gal 3:17
The covenant previously ratified is the covenant with Abraham -- which is fulfilled to Christ inaugurating the New Covenant.

What you're saying doesn't really make sense. Let me make sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
The Abr. covenant was ratified, but not implemented, then fulfilled when Christ brought the New Covenant,... but never implemented. Is that what you're saying? The Abr. Covenant was ratified, but never put into effect because the New Covenant came.

If this is the case, what was the point of the Abrahamic Covenant? Also, where are we Gentiles included in salvation? Where does the Bible say we fit in? And why did Paul mention this promise in Gal 3:8?

But it's not "the Old Covenant", which is clearly Moses. 2 Cor 3:14-16:
until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

This simply says that when the Old Covenant is read, the veil remains. Then it tells us what the veil is; the law. It doesn't exclude the Abrahamic Covenant from being the Old Covenant, as you're suggesting. The law isn't the promise (covenant), the promise to Abraham is the covenant, as confirmed by Gal 3:18;

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
It's obvious. It's the Abrahamic Covenant, the Old Covenant.

It's painfully clear that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the Old Covenant.

How could the law be the promise when you consider Gal 3:18? Paul tells us clearly that the law IS NOT the promise, yet you insist that it is. You are contradicting Paul.

God Bless!

heymikey80

2nd October 2006, 08:53 PM

What you're saying doesn't really make sense. Let me make sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.
The Abr. covenant was ratified, but not implemented, then fulfilled when Christ brought the New Covenant,... but never implemented. Is that what you're saying? The Abr. Covenant was ratified, but never put into effect because the New Covenant came.
Nope.

Abrahamic: ratified, put into effect.
Mosaic: ratified, put into effect.
New: ratified, put into effect.
This simply says that when the Old Covenant is read, the veil remains. Then it tells us what the veil is; the law. It doesn't exclude the Abrahamic Covenant from being the Old Covenant, as you're suggesting. The law isn't the promise (covenant), the promise to Abraham is the covenant, as confirmed by Gal 3:18;

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.
2 Cor 3 identifies the Old Covenant as Moses. It interchanges them directly: "when Moses is read ... at the reading of the Old Covenant".

Moses isn't Abraham. Kinda ... obvious. So Mosaic Covenant isn't Abrahamic Covenant, also concluded from Gal 3:15 (430 years later: not the same covenant).

Therefore: Old Covenant: not Abrahamic.
How could the law be the promise when you consider Gal 3:18? Paul tells us clearly that the law IS NOT the promise, yet you insist that it is. You are contradicting Paul.
Nope. Never did. I await you to support your allegation of something I never said.

ddub85

3rd October 2006, 10:47 AM

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
What you're saying doesn't really make sense. Let me make sure I understand exactly what you're saying here.The Abr. covenant was ratified, but not implemented, then fulfilled when Christ brought the New Covenant,... but never implemented. Is that what you're saying? The Abr. Covenant was ratified, but never put into effect because the New Covenant came.

Nope.
Abrahamic: ratified, put into effect.

When? When was it ratified, and when was it put into effect.
Mosaic: ratified, put into effect.
Ok,...

New: ratified, put into effect.

When? When was it put into effect? What scripture says so?

You see, you have a real problem here. You have the Abrahamic Covenant given, but never implemented nor fulfilled. So I ask you to please detail when it was given, and when it was implemented and fulfilled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
This simply says that when the Old Covenant is read, the veil remains. Then it tells us what the veil is; the law. It doesn't exclude the Abrahamic Covenant from being the Old Covenant, as you're suggesting. The law isn't the promise (covenant), the promise to Abraham is the covenant, as confirmed by Gal 3:18;
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.

2 Cor 3 identifies the Old Covenant as Moses. It interchanges them directly: "when Moses is read ... at the reading of the Old Covenant".

Simply not true. The interchange throughout the chapter is law to grace, the letter to the spirit. The comparison is the Old Covenant to the law. One contains the spirit, the other does not.

Moses isn't Abraham. Kinda ... obvious. So Mosaic Covenant isn't Abrahamic Covenant, also concluded from Gal 3:15 (430 years later: not the same covenant).

I'm in total agreement with that point.

Therefore: Old Covenant: not Abrahamic.

Here's your mistake- you're assuming the spirit and glory being spoken of in the chapter is the New Covenant, and it's not. Proof of that is most easily seen in v. 11, as it's what REMAINS that is glorious. That, obviously, IS NOT the New Covenant, as it wasn't even there yet by even your account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
How could the law be the promise when you consider Gal 3:18? Paul tells us clearly that the law IS NOT the promise, yet you insist that it is. You are contradicting Paul.

Nope. Never did. I await you to support your allegation of something I never said.

Everytime you call the law the Old Covenant, you call it a promise. A covenant is a promise.

But really, the true proof that the law isn't the Old Covenant is in the simple fact that the law is the main component in the New Covenant. Therefore, how could it also be the Old Covenant?

God Bless!

heymikey80

6th October 2006, 12:12 PM

You see, you have a real problem here. You have the Abrahamic Covenant given, but never implemented nor fulfilled. So I ask you to please detail when it was given, and when it was implemented and fulfilled.
"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. Gen 17:2-10

It is not my position, but yours with the problem.

Covenants contain promises. Promises may be fulfilled or unfulfilled while a covenant is in effect, depending on the stipulations of the covenant.
Simply not true. The interchange throughout the chapter is law to grace, the letter to the spirit. The comparison is the Old Covenant to the law. One contains the spirit, the other does not.
The comparison is not Old Covenant to the law -- it's clearly New Covenant to Law. There is no incident splitting the law out of the Old Covenant, Moses, and then splicing in some comparison between law and the Old Covenant. The same statement is made about the Law and the Old Covenant.
Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 2 Cor 3:12-15
Here's your mistake- you're assuming the spirit and glory being spoken of in the chapter is the New Covenant, and it's not. Proof of that is most easily seen in v. 11, as it's what REMAINS that is glorious. That, obviously, IS NOT the New Covenant, as it wasn't even there yet by even your account.
Look at the Greek. It's what lasts that is glorious. The word is different from "remains as if abandoned by the rest." You err in the meaning of the word. We've been over this before.:sleep:
Everytime you call the law the Old Covenant, you call it a promise. A covenant is a promise.
This is an error in your position. God made the Ten Commandments as a covenant. Ex 34:28, Dt 4:13. They're laws. and they're a covenant.

Bring up your problem with God, not me. You've flatly failed to carry this point.
But really, the true proof that the law isn't the Old Covenant is in the simple fact that the law is the main component in the New Covenant. Therefore, how could it also be the Old Covenant?
ROFL! So in the past three sentences, you've said:

The law isn't a promise.
Covenants are promises.
The New Covenant's main component is the law.By noncontradiction this position falls. The law isn't a covenant by 1 & 2; yet it is by 3.

As for me:

The law isn't a promise.
Covenants are not promises, alone.
The New Covenant's main component is not the law.Or to build by each point:

The Law is part of the Mosaic Covenant, but not promises in it. Ex 34:28, Dt 4:13 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise Gal 3:18
Covenants may include both laws and promises at the consent of the Covenant Maker (Ps 78:10, Ps 105:9, and can include other things, too cf Num 18:19, 25:12-13, Ps 50:5)
The New Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not the Law. The Law is put in its place. It is not central. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian Gal 3:24-25

ddub85

9th October 2006, 07:04 AM

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
You see, you have a real problem here. You have the Abrahamic Covenant given, but never implemented nor fulfilled. So I ask you to please detail when it was given, and when it was implemented and fulfilled.

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham; For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you. I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. Gen 17:2-10

It is not my position, but yours with the problem.
Covenants contain promises. Promises may be fulfilled or unfulfilled while a covenant is in effect, depending on the stipulations of the covenant.

So you showed it given. Can you now please answer the rest, and whow where it was implemented and fulfilled? Let's see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Simply not true. The interchange throughout the chapter is law to grace, the letter to the spirit. The comparison is the Old Covenant to the law. One contains the spirit, the other does not.

The comparison is not Old Covenant to the law -- it's clearly New Covenant to Law. There is no incident splitting the law out of the Old Covenant, Moses, and then splicing in some comparison between law and the Old Covenant. The same statement is made about the Law and the Old Covenant.

The Spirit was promised under the Old Covenant, along with the law. The conversation is between these two Old Covenant things. Simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Here's your mistake- you're assuming the spirit and glory being spoken of in the chapter is the New Covenant, and it's not. Proof of that is most easily seen in v. 11, as it's what REMAINS that is glorious. That, obviously, IS NOT the New Covenant, as it wasn't even there yet by even your account.

Look at the Greek. It's what lasts that is glorious. The word is different from "remains as if abandoned by the rest." You err in the meaning of the word. We've been over this before.

Oh... are you attempting to leave out the FIRST meaning, "to remain, abide"? And this after you accuse me of leaving something out (that I didn't do!).
If we look at the meaning, we see the word means to remain, or to last, meaning it stays after something else is removed. It doesn't matter what meaning we use.

As for me:
The law isn't a promise.
Covenants are not promises, alone.
The New Covenant's main component is not the law.
Or to build by each point:

The law is "A" main component of the New Covenant. It is what will be placed in the hearts and minds of the recipients. Do you agree?

The Law is part of the Mosaic Covenant, but not promises in it. Ex 34:28, Dt 4:13

What, besides the law, comprises the Mosaic Covenant? I've asked you this several times and you never answer. You argue that the Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant which includes the law, right? So... WHAT, besides the law, is the Mosaic Covenant?

For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise Gal 3:18

So what is the inheritance? What is the promise?

The New Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not the Law.

The Old Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Gen 12:3, Acts 3:25, Rom 4:13, Gal 3:8).

So... what's the difference between the Old And New Covenants?

The Law is put in its place. It is not central. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian Gal 3:24-25

Faith came in the promise to Abraham. Why are you attributing it to the New Covenant?

God Bless!

heymikey80

13th October 2006, 05:36 PM

So you showed it given. Can you now please answer the rest, and whow where it was implemented and fulfilled? Let's see it.

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly." -- Census of Israel and Judah, in David, Solomon, Ezra.

"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, And you will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, But your name shall be Abraham;" instantaneous.
"For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of you, and kings will come forth from you." Saul, David, Solomon, Jehu, Edom, Israel, Judah ....
"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Joshua, Ezra, today.

"Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised." Inaugurated at the start of the covenant and also ongoing.

And if this covenant is the covenant we're supposed to be a part of, why aren't we circumcised? It's a stipulation of the Abrahamic covenant, ddub85: "every male among you shall be circumcised." Not just, "all your descendants."
The Spirit was promised under the Old Covenant, along with the law. The conversation is between these two Old Covenant things. Simple.
Promised but not fulfilled.And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh Acts 2:17
Oh... are you attempting to leave out the FIRST meaning, "to remain, abide"? And this after you accuse me of leaving something out (that I didn't do!).
If we look at the meaning, we see the word means to remain, or to last, meaning it stays after something else is removed. It doesn't matter what meaning we use.
No, "remain" means this as a secondary meaning when it's translated, and that meaning is shown to be secondary in Greek as well, ddub85. The primary meaning of remain: "to continue in the same state; continue to be as specified". It does not require the idea of abandonment. So your requiring it to mean abandonment simply demands by your theology something the Scripture does not state here.

Which has been my point. Find somewhere your view is supported, and we'll talk. Sure, it's permitted by your view of what's stated here. But it's not supported. And it can readily mean something else.

For instance, if Jesus had meant in John 15:4ff, "remain [abandoned] in me and I in you," your view would demand something like mass-apostasy from this verse, leaving only the disciples. The meaning of abandonment is not even implied there. Jesus simply means, "last, stay with me". "Stick with me."
The law is "A" main component of the New Covenant. It is what will be placed in the hearts and minds of the recipients. Do you agree?
The law is a component of the New Covenant, and is established (that is, right this minute) in its proper place in the New Covenant. Rom 3:31.
What, besides the law, comprises the Mosaic Covenant? I've asked you this several times and you never answer. You argue that the Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant which includes the law, right? So... WHAT, besides the law, is the Mosaic Covenant?
:sleep:Already answered. Look it up.
So what is the inheritance? What is the promise?
The inheritance is the world. The promise is the incorporation of Gentiles through the inheritance.
The Old Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Gen 12:3, Acts 3:25, Rom 4:13, Gal 3:8).
:doh: The New Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not the Law. "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Lk 22:20

Paul said we're ministers of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6), not ministers of the Old Covenant: "For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away." 2 Cor 3:14 It chops away at Paul's statements to say "the Spirit is Old Covenant, the Law is Old Covenant, it's all Old Covenant." Especially when Paul is focusing explicitly on the New Covenant: "Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6

So... what's the difference between the Old And New Covenants?
In your view? I have no idea.
Faith came in the promise to Abraham. Why are you attributing it to the New Covenant?
Faith in the promises of the New Covenant came in the New Covenant. Faith in promises is the constant; the promises are being fulfilled in the New Covenant of Christ's blood.

heymikey80

14th October 2006, 09:09 AM

Actually, that wasn't the first covenant. For instance, the covenant made with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) preceded it.
Scripturally, the Mosaic Covenant is referred to as "the first covenant". It's quite fine to label Moses as "the first covenant", making this qualification prevents Scripture from saying what it says explicitly.

ddub85

17th October 2006, 10:26 AM

@ heymikey
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
So you showed it given. Can you now please answer the rest, and whow where it was implemented and fulfilled? Let's see it.

I will establish My covenant between Me and you,... for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Joshua, Ezra, today.

We have no part in that, and that's not what we're discussing. That wasn't promised to us. We're discussing what we Gentiles have been promised. Let me be very specific;

Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: ((and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.))

"AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED."
See that? That section, that sentence, that particular PROMISE is what we Gentiles have been promised. Out of all you list, out of these promises here to Abraham, this blessing of salvation here is what pertains to us Gentiles. It's what we've been allotted/assigned. The
rest doesn't pertain to us. But Paul tells us that THIS particular promise does;

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (GENTILES) through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

This single promise is to Gentiles, pulled out and separated amongst all the promises to Abraham, laid right in front of us to see by Paul. He reiterates it over and over;
Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Rom 4:13 ¶ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

This is the SINGLE PROMISE to us Gentiles given to Abraham. When was it implemented and fulfilled?

"Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised." Inaugurated at the start of the covenant and also ongoing.
And if this covenant is the covenant we're supposed to be a part of, why aren't we circumcised? It's a stipulation of the Abrahamic covenant, ddub85: "every male among you shall be circumcised." Not
just, "all your descendants."

No, it's NOT a stipulation for us. Read;
Rom 4:9 ¶ [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

The covenant was given to Abraham in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which [he had] being [yet] uncircumcised.

Rom 4:13 ¶ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith.

Plain, simple, biblical, correct. We are a part of this covenant without circumcision, and Paul explains it very clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
The Spirit was promised under the Old Covenant, along with the law. The conversation is between these two Old Covenant things. Simple.

Promised but not fulfilled.And in the last days it shall be, God declares,that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh Acts 2:17

And so herein lies the question. When was this promise fulfilled? Was it left unfulfilled under the Old Covenant? Was the Old Covenant abandoned and forgotten, giving way to the New Covenant? Did Peter or Paul say such a thing? Did anyone? That seems to be your belief. A
promise made under the Old covenant, fulfilled in the New Covenant. Is that correct?

No, "remain" means this as a secondary meaning when it's translated, and that meaning is shown to be secondary in Greek as well, ddub85. The primary meaning of remain: "to continue in the same state; continue to be as specified". It does not require the idea of abandonment. So your requiring it to mean abandonment simply demands by your theology
something the Scripture does not state here. Which has been my point. Find somewhere your view is supported, and we'll talk. Sure, it's permitted by your view of what's stated here. But it's not supported. And it can readily mean something else. For instance, if Jesus had meant in John 15:4ff, "remain [abandoned] in me and I in you," your view would demain something like mass-apostasy from this verse. It's not even implied there. Jesus simply means, "last, stay with me". "Stick with me."

Supported? That's done throughout the statement. The Spirit was an Old Covenant promise. The law followed the promise of the Spirit. The fulfillment comes under the covenant given. There's nothing that says
the promise shifts to a new covenant. That just isn't present in the Bible. The promise was given to all in the Abrahamic Covenant, not in any other covenant.
You have decided to rewrite the Bible and shift the promise given in the Abrahamic Covenant over to the New Covenant without any biblical support to do so. My position is supported by this simple fact. The promise was made in the Abrahamic Covenant. You have no support for your position that it is now a New Covenant promise. That is the difference in our two positions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
The law is "A" main component of the New Covenant. It is what will be placed in the hearts and minds of the recipients. Do you agree?

The law is a component of the New Covenant, and is established (that is, right this minute) in its proper place in the New Covenant. Rom 3:31.

And you see that in Rom 3:31? It says the law is established in the New Covenant? You're proving my point very well. You see things that simply aren't written in the Bible. It says nothing about this verse being of the New Covenant. It says nothing of any of what Paul is saying is related to the New Covenant. But in the very next breath, Paul speaks about Abraham, and that covenant. But you choose to ignore that, and relate what is said to the New Covenant.

Wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
What, besides the law, comprises the Mosaic Covenant? I've asked you this several times and you never answer. You argue that the Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant which includes the law, right? So... WHAT, besides the law, is the Mosaic Covenant?

Already answered. Look it up.

In "looking it up", this is all I can find on what you say it is. Both of these statements add up to only the law;

"I think my position holds fast: read Moses and you read the law."
"The Law is part of the Mosaic Covenant, but not promises in it. Ex
34:28, Dt 4:13 "
These verses are speaking exclusively of the law. Is the Mosaic Covenant the law only? I want to be clear. If it's just the law, then say so. If it's more, then just list what it is. Rather than play that hide and seek game, why not just list it right here, right now?

Originally Posted by ddub85
So what is the inheritance? What is the promise?
The inheritance is the world.
And that inheritance goes to whom?

The promise is the incorporation of Gentiles through the inheritance.

And that promise was made in the Abrahamic Covenant, correct? So why are you assigning it's fulfillment to the New Covenant?

Originally Posted by ddub85
The Old Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ (Gen 12:3, Acts 3:25, Rom 4:13, Gal 3:8).

The New Covenant's main component is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not the Law. "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Lk 22:20

This says nothing of atonement. Hbr 9:15 speaks of redemption in the Old Covenant. Besides, we Gentiles aren't included in the New Covenant. If atonement isn't in the Old Covenant, then we Gentiles aren't included.

Paul said we're ministers of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6), not ministers of the Old Covenant:

Very true. But Paul said we are recipients of the Old Covenant (Gal 3:8), not the New Covenant.

"For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away." 2 Cor 3:14 It chops away at Paul's statements to say the Spirit is Old Covenant, the Law is Old Covenant, it's all Old Covenant. Especially when Paul is focusing explicitly on the New Covenant:

Paul isn't focusing on the New Covenant here. When the Jews read about the atonement of their Old Covenant sins, the law remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Paul says the Spirit is Old Covenant, the law is Old Covenant. Why would you even be arguing those FACTS? Paul's focus for us Gentiles is the fact that our salvation was given under the Abrahamic Covenant, and he NEVER states we're under the New Covenant. Nowhere in the Bible does
it say the New Covenant is active today.

"Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit.
For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor 3:5-6

MINISTERS, not recipients.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

RECIPIENTS, not ministers. See the difference?

Originally Posted by ddub85
So... what's the difference between the Old And New Covenants?

In your view? I have no idea.

Then let me make it clear for you. The Old Covenant included salvation to all, both Jew and Gentile. It says so right there, plainly, for all to see, in the Bible.
The New Covenant was to Jews ONLY. It says so right there, plainly, for all to see, in the Bible. There are no scriptures which say Gentiles are, will be, or were ever intended to be, under the New Covenant.

Originally Posted by ddub85
Faith came in the promise to Abraham. Why are you attributing it to the New Covenant?

Faith in the promises of the New Covenant came in the New Covenant.

That's nice. But grace by faith, salvation, atonement, redemption, came before the New Covennat. That would be the point.

Faith in promises is the constant; the promises are being fulfilled in the New Covenant of Christ's blood.

What scripture says so? Are we back to just taking your word over what the Bible says again?

God Bless!

ddub85

17th October 2006, 10:27 AM

Scripturally, the Mosaic Covenant is referred to as "the first covenant". It's quite fine to label Moses as "the first covenant", making this qualification prevents Scripture from saying what it says explicitly.
Gal 3:19 ¶ Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

The law was added to what was already there, the Abrahamic Covenant. So technically, yes.

God Bless!

Iosias

28th October 2006, 06:24 AM

Hello Hedgehog!

The covenant of God is a relation of intimate friendship and communion between the triune God as Sovereign-Friend and the elect in Christ as servant-friends.

Two books I would recommend:
1. God's Everlasting Covenant of Grace by Herman Hanko. http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=2
2. Believers and their Seed by Herman Hoeksema. http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=15 Whilst about baptism it has a good few chapter on the covenant. If you get it start reading at chapter 5.

Both of these deal fantastically with the covenant of God.

Note the covenant is unconditional and one-sided. It is not a pact! Read this I suggest:

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_49.html

GLJCA

22nd December 2006, 06:02 PM

"AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED."
See that? That section, that sentence, that particular PROMISE is what we Gentiles have been promised. Out of all you list, out of these promises here to Abraham, this blessing of salvation here is what pertains to us Gentiles. It's what we've been allotted/assigned. The
rest doesn't pertain to us. But Paul tells us that THIS particular promise does;

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (GENTILES) through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

This single promise is to Gentiles, pulled out and separated amongst all the promises to Abraham, laid right in front of us to see by Paul. He reiterates it over and over;
Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
Rom 4:13 ¶ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

This is the SINGLE PROMISE to us Gentiles given to Abraham. When was it implemented and fulfilled?

Come on DDub are you saying that Isaac only received the one promise, the promise of salvation? I mean Gal 4:28 states that we, as Isaac, are children of promise. Therefore if we only received one promise that means Isaac only received one promise. It has to work both ways, my friend.

GLJCA

ddub85

23rd December 2006, 01:08 AM

@ GLJCA

Come on DDub are you saying that Isaac only received the one promise, the promise of salvation? I mean Gal 4:28 states that we, as Isaac, are children of promise. Therefore if we only received one promise that means Isaac only received one promise. It has to work both ways, my friend.

I'm not saying that Isaac only received one promise, I'm saying hat we're under the same promise as Isaac. Rather, that's what the BIBLE says. You seem to be avoiding that point.

I don't see where the Bible discloses whether or not Isaac received more than the one promise. But either way, it has no efect on my point.

You didn't answer the question; "This is the SINGLE PROMISE to us Gentiles given to Abraham. When was it implemented and fulfilled?"

Care to comment?

God Bless!

GLJCA

26th December 2006, 03:22 PM

@ GLJCA
I'm not saying that Isaac only received one promise, I'm saying hat we're under the same promise as Isaac. Rather, that's what the BIBLE says. You seem to be avoiding that point.

I don't see where the Bible discloses whether or not Isaac received more than the one promise. But either way, it has no efect on my point.

You didn't answer the question; "This is the SINGLE PROMISE to us Gentiles given to Abraham. When was it implemented and fulfilled?"

Care to comment?

God Bless!

Nope, not avoiding, rejecting is more the word. I am rejecting the belief that we are still in the Old Covenant. You have to pick and choose the scriptures that you want to accept and reject the rest to believe that we are still in the Old Covenant. I accept all of what the New Testament teaches not just what I want to believe.

You are dodging the fact that it works both ways. Paul says that Isaac was a child of promise and he also said that we are equal to Isaac as a children of promise. Since we are Christ's then we are joint-heirs with Him of all the promises given to Abraham and his seed, Christ. If we only inherit one promise then that means that Isaac and also Christ only inherit one promise. Since we are joint-heirs with Christ everything that Christ inherited, we inherited, even the land promise, which is the whole world.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Therefore the land promise is no longer a little bitty strip of land in the middle east it is the whole world. That is why Jesus could tell His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel because all the world is His. He is King over His Kingdom.

We are no longer under the Old Covenant since the New Covenant has been established at the death of the testator. At the death of Jesus Christ the New Covenant was put, "OF FORCE", which means that those who come to Christ are under the New Covenant not the Old.

Please explain what it means to be a minister of the New Covenant?
2Cr 3:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr003.html#6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Paul is telling us that we are able ministers of the New Testament that is written in our hearts, not of the letter but of the spirit. How can Paul tell us that we are a ministers of something that doesn't exist?

Paul instructed the Gentile Corinthian Church to observe and celebrate the New Testament in Christ blood shed for them.
1Cr 11:25 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr011.html#25) After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

Hbr 9:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr009.html#15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Who are the called? Paul writting to a Gentile Roman Church said,
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Have you received the promise of eternal inheritance? If not, then, you are not one of Christ's because those who are Christ's are joint-heirs with Him.

I know that we have been through this before and your explanations of what established and "of force" means is very desperate and unbiblical but you have to maintain that stand or otherwise you would have to say what you believe is false. I understand why you are doing it, but I could not do it myself. When confronted with the truth, I dropped the false teaching of Dispensationalism like a hot potato. There were just too many holes that I had been trying to fill for years with no success. There were too many questions that I had to dodge and ignore for me to believe that it was the truth.

The Word fits together like a seamless garment but Dispys treat it like a patchwork quilt.

GLJCA

billwald

26th December 2006, 05:15 PM

The "real" Apostles in the Jerusalem Church continued their Temple worship and required Paul to offer a sacrifice.

GLJCA

26th December 2006, 07:05 PM

The "real" Apostles in the Jerusalem Church continued their Temple worship and required Paul to offer a sacrifice.
Acts was a transition time for the Jews. Several thousand years of tradition was changing. They were finding out that baptism was the sign of the New covenant instead of circumcision like they had always known. They found out that Jesus Christ was the only sacrifice from sins instead of the bulls and goats that they had always known. They found out that there was a New Covenant in place instead of the Old Covenant that they had always known.

Tradition was not easy for them to replace. Even though the apostles preached the differences the Jews had a hard time changing them.

The reason for the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 was to clear up some requirements that some confused Jews were trying to place on the Gentiles. They were trying to say that the Gentiles had to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved. Here is what Peter stood up and told them.
Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Here Peter preached grace of God in salvation to the Jew and the Gentile among the listeners at the Jerusalem council. He told them that they should not put a burden on the Gentile disciples that their forefathers nor the apostles had been able to bear.
Therefore they sent a letter saying. Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:
So as you see the apostles did not give such a commandment to the Gentiles nor did they send Jews to preach that to anyone, because they knew those things were shadows pointing to Christ.

As far as Paul offering sacrifices he said in 1Cor 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.
Paul preached to and tried to save the Jews as well as the Gentiles, even to the end of the book of Acts, which is right before his death.

God knew that the Jews would not give up their traditions therefore God destroyed the temple in AD70, which in turn stopped the sacrifices. Daniel prophesied that because of Christ the sacrifice and oblation would cease. Daniel 9:27 ...and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease... Every sacrifice that was given was a slap in the face of the one true sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is why God will never allow the temple to be rebuilt like the Dispys are teaching.

It is almost humorous, if it wasn't so sad, for the Dispys to teach that Jesus Christ will be seated on His throne ruling with the proverbial rod of iron, yet not stopping the Jews from offering sacrifices that throw His one true sacrifice in His face. You can't tell me that makes sense to you.

GLJCA

franky67

26th December 2006, 08:26 PM

Daniel 9:27 ...and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...

Who would you say the "HE" above is?

billwald

27th December 2006, 12:13 AM

>They were trying to say that the Gentiles had to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised to be saved.

This was a basic error because the Mosiac Covenant had nothing to do with "being saved" for Jews or gentiles. It was a social contract for living in Israel. There is nothing in Exo thru Deut that obligates gentiles outside the land.

> Here is what Peter stood up and told them.
Acts 15:10-11 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

Who is "we," Kemosabe? Did Moses lie to the people? Why are rabbinical jews pleased to observe the Mosiac Covenant? Why do they think they are doing it?

> But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

This is true.

>. . . So as you see the apostles did not give such a commandment to the Gentiles nor did they send Jews to preach that to anyone, because they knew those things were shadows pointing to Christ.

They obligated the gentiles to observe the Noahic Covenent which is their only legal obligation.

>. . .God knew that the Jews would not give up their traditions therefore God destroyed the temple in AD70, which in turn stopped the sacrifices.

>. . . That is why God will never allow the temple to be rebuilt like the Dispys are teaching.

Agree.

GLJCA

27th December 2006, 12:58 PM

Who would you say the "HE" above is?
The part of the passage in question is who are the people of the prince. Dispys say that the prince is the Antichrist, which in my opinion is a case of eisogesis, whereas the CTers say that the prince is Christ himself, which follows the context of the passage. The "he" in question would be the only one spoken of in the context of the passage.

Let me answer this question taking the context into account. I believe that the Prince is defined in verse 25 as the Messiah the Prince. The Messiah is the only person Daniel mentions in this passage. For Dispys to say that the prince is speaking of a so-called AntiChrist in this passage is a perfect case of eisogesis. Injecting something into a passage that you want it to say instead of reading what it says.

Dan 9:25-27 Know therefore and understand, [that] from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince [shall be] seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

The people of the prince are the ones who the prince sends to bring about the desolation. Historically we read where this happened in AD70 by the Roman General Titus.

and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease

The perfect sacrifice of Christ did away with the need for the daily sacrifice and oblations ordered in the ceremonial law. Granted it was close to 30 years before they were completely done away with but at the destruction of the temple in AD70 all sacrifice and oblations cease to be. The destruction of the temple was prophesied by Christ in Matt 24:1-2 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to [him] for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Daniel states that at the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spake, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
This happened in AD70.

Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

The event fixed from which the time of the trouble is to be dated, from the taking away of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus, and the setting up of the image of Jupiter upon the altar, which was the abomination of desolation.

Now the event answered the prediction; Josephus says expressly, in his book of the Wars of the Jews, that Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, surprised Jerusalem by force, and held it three years and six months, and was then cast out of the country by the Maccabees. Christ’s public ministry continued three years and a half, during which time he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself, and lived in poverty and disgrace; and then when his power seemed to be quite scattered at his death, and his enemies triumphed over him, he obtained the most glorious victory and said, It is finished.

[I]If you have never read the "War of the Jews", from Flavius Josephus, I would recommend it. He writes of the attrocities and desolations brought about by the siege and the war on Jerusalem. I will start another thread with that article in it.

Historically and Biblically one can not come to the conclusion that the prince is the Dispy's AntiChrist unless you take it out of context and read into it what you want it to say.

GLJCA

franky67

27th December 2006, 06:47 PM

Let me answer this question taking the context into account. I believe that the Prince is defined in verse 25 as the Messiah the Prince. The Messiah is the only person Daniel mentions in this passage. For Dispys to say that the prince is speaking of a so-called AntiChrist in this passage is a perfect case of eisogesis. Injecting something into a passage that you want it to say instead of reading what it says.

It's interesting that "Messiah the Prince" is capitalized as well as "Messiah will be cut off", and all references to the prince to come and his actions are not capitalized.

What about Dan. 11:31 ?

The tribulation in Matt. 24;21 HAS NOT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THE VERSE SAYS NONE SHALL EVER BE GREATER.

Iosias

28th December 2006, 07:25 AM

The tribulation in Matt. 24;21 HAS NOT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THE VERSE SAYS NONE SHALL EVER BE GREATER.

It occurred in AD70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. :)

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

franky67

28th December 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by franky67 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=30137502#post30137502)
The tribulation in Matt. 24;21 HAS NOT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THE VERSE SAYS NONE SHALL EVER BE GREATER.
It occurred in AD70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. :)

Lets look at that word again,

Matthew 24:21

"For then there shall be a great tribulation, such as not occurred since the beginning of the world, until now, nor ever shall ."

The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem was NOT the worst tribulation to ever occur on the earth by any stretch of anyones imagination.

I give just one of Thousands of occurrances we know of , among more thousands we don't even have records of.

Just one,

The Krakatau volcano eruption of 1883, in Indonesia.

Six cubic miles of rock thrown high into the atmosphere.

Entire earth's sky darkened by ash.

35,000 people killed with more injured.

You can Google Krakatau and find enough material to keep you reading all day, but it should be obvious that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans was not the greatest tribulation to ever occur on the earth.

None of the tribulations will compare to the coming "Great Tribulation" which Christ comes to judge the world as in the rest of the verses in Matthew 24: 21 through 30,
Mark 13:24 says the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give it's light.

None of that has happened.

The "Great Tribulation" has not yet occurred.

ddub85

30th December 2006, 09:55 PM

@ GLJCA

Nope, not avoiding, rejecting is more the word. I am rejecting the belief that we are still in the Old Covenant. You have
to pick and choose the scriptures that you want to accept and reject the rest to believe that we are still in the Old
Covenant. I accept all of what the New Testament teaches not just what I want to believe.

To me that is a bizarre statement because you haven't produced one scripture that says we're under the NC, nor one scripture which says the NC is for Gentiles. If you don't agree with that statement, then just list the scriptur(s). You don't have to say anything, just list the scripture(s). I'll bet there will be none listed. And if there are, NONE will say either thing.

But I can list for you scriptures which say the NC is for Jews. Would you like to see that? That would be the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying on the issue; SCRIPTURE.

You are dodging the fact that it works both ways. Paul says that Isaac was a child of promise and he also said that we are equal to Isaac as a children of promise.

How am I dodging that? I happen to agree with that. So where's the dodge? We, as Isaac, are children of PROMISE (singular).

Since we are Christ's then we are joint-heirs with Him...

You want to see someone dodge? What's the definition of a joint-heir? List it. Watch and see how you dodge that.

Since we are Christ's then we are joint-heirs with Him of all the promises given to Abraham and his seed, Christ.

You're creating your own gospel here. You say PROMISES (plural), but the Bible says PROMISE (singular). Why is that?

A joint-heir receives what he's been allotted, and Paul over and over again states that we've been allotted the PROMISE (singular). But you are attempting to override Paul's words, and create your own gospel by saying we receive PROMISES (plural). I don't believe that was Paul or God's intention for His words.

If we only inherit one promise then that means that Isaac and also Christ only inherit one promise.

Really? So Isaac and Christ are joint-heirs as well? What book? What scripture? What gospel?

Since we are joint-heirs with Christ everything that Christ inherited, we inherited, even the land promise, which is the whole world.

And this is straight out of the gospel according to GLJCA, which has nothing to do with the Bible. Unless, of course, you've quoted the Bible here and I just missed it. If that's the case, then just list the scripture. But something tells me that this isn't the case.

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Therefore the land promise is no longer a little bitty strip of land in the middle east it is the whole world. That is why Jesus could tell His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel because all the world is His. He is King over His Kingdom.

Do you see the word PROMISE (singular) there, or PROMISES (plural)? And the word "world" here is referring to the people, not to the land, just as when Jesus said it. So you are obviously confused. Go back and consider it again with this new information in mind.
We are no longer under the Old Covenant since the New Covenant has been established at the death of the testator.
You keep neglecting these simple questions which annihalate your theory. First, when was the Abrahamic Covenantestablished? And who died to establish the Abrahamic Covenant?

At the death of Jesus Christ the New Covenant was put, "OF FORCE", which means that those who come to Christ are under the New Covenant not the Old.

You're simply just not being truthful here. What does "OF FORCE" mean?

bebaios {beb'-ah-yos} 949

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 1:600,103 from the base of 939 (through the idea of basality)
Part of Speech
adj
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) stable, fast, firm
2) metaph. sure, trusty
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 9
AV - stedfast 4, sure 2, firm 1, of force 1, more sure 1;

Which is NOTHING like what you're saying it is. It says absolutely nothing about being under the NC if you consider the meaning. It says the covenant is sure, firm, established. It says nothing about it beginning. Let's be honest and truthful about it, ok?

Please explain what it means to be a minister of the New Covenant?
2Cr 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Paul is telling us that we are able ministers of the New Testament that is written in our hearts, not of the letter but of the spirit. How can Paul tell us that we are a ministers of something that doesn't exist?
What is a minister? Like a waiter in a restaurant. Is the meal for the waiter? NO! The meal isn't being served to the waiter, the meal is for the recipient, who isn't necessarily the waiter. Therefore, this verse isn't saying that we are under the NC. It doesn't says we are able "recipients". Get it?

Paul instructed the Gentile Corinthian Church to observe and celebrate the New Testament in Christ blood shed for them.
1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

And Paul DID NOT say we're under the NC. Jesus blood shed for it? Yes. Us under it? No.

Hbr 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Who are the called?

What do they receive? The PROMISE (singular). Also, what covenant sins are forgiven? The OC sins.

Paul writting to a Gentile Roman Church said,
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Have you received the promise of eternal inheritance? If not, then, you are not one of Christ's because those who are Christ's are joint-heirs with Him.

And what is that promise? The promise that all nations will be blessed (Gal 3:8).

I know that we have been through this before and your explanations of what established and "of force" means is very desperate and unbiblical but you have to maintain that stand or otherwise you would have to say what you believe is false.

What I maintain about "of force" is straight from the Bible. What YOU maintain is unbiblical, and can't be established by you as biblical, thereby making it false. I listed for you what the Bible says in the context of the meaning of the word. You can't do that, beause what you're saying is false.

I understand why you are doing it, but I could not do it myself. When confronted with the truth, I dropped the false teaching of Dispensationalism like a hot potato. There were just too many holes that I had been trying to fill for years with no success. There were too many questions that I had to dodge and ignore for me to believe that it was the truth.

Just list the questions and I'll help you with that. But CLEARLY I'm showing you the huge gaps in your current theory, beginning with the fact you're misconstruing the meaning of the word "of force". This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of what the word actualy means. If you can't accept that, how can you accept any truth?

The Word fits together like a seamless garment but Dispys treat it like a patchwork quilt.

Holding on to your Covenant Theology theory is like holding water with a tennis net.

God Bless!

GLJCA

30th December 2006, 11:01 PM

It's interesting that "Messiah the Prince" is capitalized as well as "Messiah will be cut off", and all references to the prince to come and his actions are not capitalized.

What about Dan. 11:31 ?

The tribulation in Matt. 24;21 HAS NOT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THE VERSE SAYS NONE SHALL EVER BE GREATER.

The fact is that there is not a subject change in the context of the passage. For Daniel to be speaking of a different person he would have to clarify who he is talking about. One of the major rules of interpretation that Dispensationalism abuses constantly, is context. One has to remain consistent with context.

The tribulation in Matt. 24;21 HAS NOT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THE VERSE SAYS NONE SHALL EVER BE GREATER.

Let's look at some facts.
1. Wars and rumors of wars. When Jesus said that there would be wars and rumors of wars it was a sign that the time was near. That could only be a sign if it wasn't happening at the time He was speaking. Today that statement would not be a dramatic difference in the world because this nation as well as the nation of Israel is constantly in in a state of war. On the other hand at the time Jesus was speaking in Matt 24 they were in the time called Pax Romana. Which was a period of two centuries where there was no war and any insurrection was put down with heavy force. Today war is a way of life but then many listening to Jesus had never seen nor heard of war.

2. Famines and pestilences. During the siege of Titus in AD70 that was prevelant. Hundreds of thousands died in the siege. See the excerpt from Flavius Josephus below.

3. To the Jew no Tribulation could ever be greater. Think about what they lost. They lost their Messiah, they lost the kingdom, they lost their temple, where they sacrificed for their sins. How are their sins forgiven today? They aren't! The wrath of God came upon the unbelieving nation Israel and they will never return to the place they held as the people of God unless they repent and believe in Jesus Christ, who they hate with a vegenence.

4. There was over 1.5 million people slaughtered during the battle but no one knows how many died when the Jews turned their swords on other Jews during the siege of Titus in AD70.

5. The text cannot refer to a “tribulation” at the end of time, otherwise Christ would not have said “nor ever shall be.” The Lord’s return will signal “the end” (see 1 Cor. 15:24) of earthly affairs (see 2 Pet. 3:4). That day will be the “last day” (Jn. 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). It would hardly make sense to use the expression “nor ever shall be” when referring to an event that is proximate to the very end of the world itself.

6. It makes no sense for Jesus to warn the listeners in Matt 24 to flee to the mountains when none of what He was saying would even affect them.

Jesus told the high priest that he and those around him would see Jesus coming in the clouds with power and great glory in Matt 26:64. How could that happen if Jesus was not going to come in the clouds for 2000+ years? Research the Old Testament scriptures and see what coming in the clouds signified.
Jer 4:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jer/Jer004.html#13) Behold, he shall come up as clouds, and his chariots [shall be] as a whirlwind: his horses are swifter than eagles. Woe unto us! for we are spoiled.
Isa 19:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa019.html#1) The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
The Lord coming in the clouds signifies the wrath of God coming upon a nation.

The language that is used concerning the sun, moon, and stars is also prophetic language. It is used several times in the OT signifying that a nation is about to bite the dust. Here Isaiah prophesies of the Lord destroying Babylon in 539BC.
Isa 13:9-10 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

The prophet Joel prophesied of the destruction of Jerusalem and if you remember Peter requoted that scripture to the Jews in Acts 2.
Joe 2:31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Joe/Joe002.html#31) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Acts 2:19-20 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
This destruction took place in AD70. Did the sun quit shining, and the moon turn to blood, and the stars fall from heaven? No but neither did it in Isaiah 13. It was prophetic language and the Jews of that day knew exactly what it meant. Peter did not tell the Jews in Acts 2 that only part of Joel's prophesy was being fulfilled. He said, "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel". Those in power and authority in the land were looked on and depicted as the sun, moon, and stars. Why would they use sun, moon, and stars to describe powers and authorities? The same reason we do. Why do we have stars on our flag? What do they represent? State authorities.

It is the literal interpretation that is causing Dispenationalism to incorrectly interpret the book of Revelation. Another rule of interpetation is to find out if that language shows up somewhere else and what it meant there.

No the great tribulation was in AD70, which is the only thing that fits with scripture.

Here is an excerpt from Flavius Josephus, "History of the War of the Jews", which should show that the tribulation in AD70 was worse than anything the Jews had ever seen or will ever see.

Josephus writes,
Throughout the city people were dying of hunger in large numbers, and enduring unspeakable sufferings. In every house the merest hint of food sparked violence, and close relatives fell to blows, snatching from one another the pitiful supports of life. No respect was paid even to the dying; the ruffians [anti-Roman zealots] searched them, in case they were concealing food somewhere in their clothes, or just pretending to be near death. Gaping with hunger, like mad dogs, lawless gangs went staggering and reeling through the streets, battering upon the doors like drunkards, and so bewildered that they broke into the same house two or three times in an hour. Need drove the starving to gnaw at anything. Refuse which even animals would reject was collected and turned into food. In the end they were eating belts and shoes, and the leather stripped off their shields. Tufts of withered grass were devoured, and sold in little bundles for four drachmas.

Here is another excerpt,

Nor was any regard paid to those that were still alive, by their relations; nor was there any care taken of burial for those that were dead; the occasion of both which was this, that every one despaired of himself; for those that were not among the seditious had no great desires of any thing, as expecting for certain that they should very soon be destroyed; but for the seditious themselves, they fought against each other, while they trod upon the dead bodies as they lay heaped one upon another, and taking up a mad rage from those dead bodies that were under their feet, became the fiercer thereupon. They, moreover, were still inventing somewhat or other that was pernicious against themselves; and when they had resolved upon any thing, they executed it without mercy, and omitted no method of torment or of barbarity.

But when Titus was just coming thither with his armed men, Simon was acquainted with the matter before he came, and presently took the tower into his own custody, before it was surrendered, and seized upon these men, and put them to death in the sight of the Romans themselves; and when he had mangled their dead bodies, he threw them down before the wall of the city.

Yet did another plague seize upon those that were thus preserved; for there was found among the Syrian deserters a certain person who was caught gathering pieces of gold out of the excrements of the Jews' bellies; for the deserters used to swallow such pieces of gold, as we told you before, when they came out, and for these did the seditious search them all; for there was a great quantity of gold in the city, insomuch that as much was now sold [in the Roman camp] for twelve Attic [drams], as was sold before for twenty-five…..Nor does it seem to me that any misery befell the Jews that was more terrible than this, since in one night's time about two thousand of these deserters were thus dissected.

But it appeared that the love of money was too hard for all their dread of punishment, and a vehement desire of gain is natural to men, and no passion is so venturesome as covetousness; otherwise such passions have certain bounds, and are subordinate to fear. But in reality it was God who condemned the whole nation, and turned every course that was taken for their preservation to their destruction. This, therefore, which was forbidden by Caesar under such a threatening, was ventured upon privately against the deserters, and these barbarians would go out still, and meet those that ran away before any saw them, and looking about them to see that no Roman spied them, they dissected them, and pulled this polluted money out of their bowels; which money was still found in a few of them, while yet a great many were destroyed by the bare hope there was of thus getting by them, which miserable treatment made many that were deserting to return back again into the city.
After this man there ran away to Titus many of the eminent citizens, and told him the entire number of the poor that were dead, and that no fewer than six hundred thousand were thrown out at the gates, though still the number of the rest could not be discovered; and they told him further, that when they were no longer able to carry out the dead bodies of the poor, they laid their corpses on heaps in very large houses, and shut them up therein; as also that a medimnus of wheat was sold for a talent; and that when, a while afterward, it was not possible to gather herbs, by reason the city was all walled about, some persons were driven to that terrible distress as to search the common sewers and old dunghills of cattle, and to eat the dung which they got there; and what they of old could not endure so much as to see they now used for food.

Now, this destruction that fell upon the Jews, as it was not inferior to any of the rest in itself, so did it still appear greater than it really was; and this, because not only the whole of the country through which they had fled was filled with slaughter, and Jordan could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it, but because the Lake Asphaltitis was also full of dead bodies, that were carried down into it by the river.

Dispensationalism’s literal interpretation of Revelation and Matt 24 can only be believed if one doesn’t study the early church leaders. All of the prophecies concerning Dispensationalism’s “end times” were fulfilled in AD 70. What we are waiting for is the “Last Day”, which is when Christ comes down at the end of time and divides the sheep from the goats. He will cast the devil, his angels and all of the goats that followed him into the lake of fire and the sheep will be with the Lord forever.

I know that this is long and I apologize but there is much to say on this subject in scripture that is being missed by Dispys following a literal interpretation that doesn't make sense.

One more thing. Many Dispys say that the stars in Rev 6:13 are literal. Yet they forget the sun is one of the smallest stars in our universe yet it is many times bigger than the earth. What would happen if the sun fell on the earth? Then in Rev 9:1 a star falls from heaven and is given a key to the bottomless pit and this is the point where most Dispys say that this star is not literal. The interesting point is that no one can tell you why one is literal and the other isn't. There is no basis to distinguish the difference.

GLJCA

GLJCA

30th December 2006, 11:11 PM

To me that is a bizarre statement because you haven't produced one scripture that says we're under the NC, nor one scripture which says the NC is for Gentiles. If you don't agree with that statement, then just list the scriptur(s). You don't have to say anything, just list the scripture(s). I'll bet there will be none listed. And if there are, NONE will say either thing.

But I can list for you scriptures which say the NC is for Jews. Would you like to see that? That would be the difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying on the issue; SCRIPTURE.

DDub I have produced several and you have either ignored them or just outright refused to acknowledge the fact that Paul himself said that we are not only in the New Covenant but we have been made able ministers of it.

Now look if you don't want to see this truth then that is fine but please don't accuse us of not producing the proof of our statements.

GLJCA

GLJCA

30th December 2006, 11:21 PM

How am I dodging that? I happen to agree with that. So where's the dodge? We, as Isaac, are children of PROMISE (singular).

Come on DDub. You know that you are dodging my statement concerning the fact that Paul equates us with Isaac as a child of promise. If we only inherit one promise so does Isaac. It works both ways. Isaac does not just inherit one promise. He inherits all of them. We can not be equated with someone and there be a difference, that would not be equal. You keep talking around it so that you don't have to address that fact.

GLJCA

GinnaRM

30th December 2006, 11:32 PM

I find all of this very interesting. I have often wondered about the covenants. I do hope I will learn something on this subject. I truly would like to understand better than I do.

GLJCA

30th December 2006, 11:33 PM

You're creating your own gospel here. You say PROMISES (plural), but the Bible says PROMISE (singular). Why is that?

A joint-heir receives what he's been allotted, and Paul over and over again states that we've been allotted the PROMISE (singular). But you are attempting to override Paul's words, and create your own gospel by saying we receive PROMISES (plural). I don't believe that was Paul or God's intention for His words.

Nope just believing what the Bible says.
Rom 8:17 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom008.html#17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.
2Cr 1:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr001.html#20) For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
2Cr 7:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Cr/2Cr007.html#1) Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
Hbr 6:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr006.html#12) That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
God's promises are inherited through faith not bloodline.
Hbr 8:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr008.html#6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
2Pe 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Pe/2Pe001.html#4) Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Now DDub again I will say that we inherit the promises of God just as Isaac did, because in Christ all the promises of God are fulfilled to us who are of faith.

GLJCA

GLJCA

31st December 2006, 12:33 AM

Which is NOTHING like what you're saying it is. It says absolutely nothing about being under the NC if you consider the meaning. It says the covenant is sure, firm, established. It says nothing about it beginning. Let's be honest and truthful about it, ok?

You never answered my question of how one can be an able minister of the New Testament when, as you say, it doesn't exist yet?

Why do you keep dodging my questions?

A will or testament/covenant does not come into affect until the death of the testator. Isn't that what the writer of Hebrews is saying, DDub?
Heb 9:17 For a testament [is] of force(stable, stedfast, firm, sure, trusty) after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The definition given in Thayer's Lexicon for Heb 9:17 is "valid and therefore inviolable".

The definition of valid is,
1 : having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities
2 a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct

Now did Jesus Christ die? Yep! Therefore the testament is in firmly, surely, validly in place. All wrestling that you are doing is for nothing. You are denying the forgiveness of your sins. I have said over and over and you have dodge it over and over that the forgiveness of your sins was accomplished because of the provision of Jesus Christ. He is the provision for the promises that God gave in Jer 31 to the house of Israel, and because we are joint-heirs with Chr