Embracing New Covenant Theology as Your Only Means of Salvation

[Servus]

Which in salvation/justification by faith apart from (Romans 3:28) and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9), they historically err.

Also you seem to be a Calvinist, so what do you think about Lordship Salvation?

 

[Clare73]

So Christianity was originally in error?

MMXX said: ↑
Latter day Protestant ideologies at conflict with each other.
Suggested remedy: original orthodox Christianity.

What do you think caused the Reformation?

 

[Clare73]

Also you seem to be a Calvinist, so what do you think about Lordship Salvation?

Don't know what that means unless it means the obedience of faith.

Salvation/justification is by faith, apart from faith's necessary works (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Sanctification is by faith's necessary works in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

 

[Servus]

What do you think caused the Reformation?

Stuff that happened later on, hence it taking place 1500 years later.

 

[Servus]

Don't know what that means unless it means the obedience of faith.

Salvation/justification is by faith, apart from faith's necessary works (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Sanctification is by faith's necessary works in the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19).

Lordship Salvation is propagated by well known Calvinist teachers like John MacArthur and John Piper. Based on reading many posts from Catholic members on topics like this, it's extremely similar to their view.

 

[Jeffrey A]

where did the inheritance of the tribe of Levi come from, as an inheritance apart from as distinct from the twelve tribes of Israel?

Nu 18:20 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.

Nu 18:23 But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance.

Nu 18:24 But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

Jos 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the LORD is their inheritance:

I'm not sure why you are switching the topic to 'who gets an inheritance of a portion of the land' when the topic is the covenants. None of what you quoted nullifies the covenant God made with the priests of Israel that they shall serve in the Temple forever: Jeremiah 33:14-22 -- "'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety... For thus says the Lord, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually...

"'If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.'"

Since no one is able to change the time day and night arrives (despite Daylight Saving Time), no one is able to break God's covenant with the Levitical priests that they shall "never lack a man before (God)" to offer sacrifices in the Temple while it stands. That is fulfilled when the Branch of David "execute(s) justice and righteousness on earth," i.e., during the millennial kingdom reign on earth, in the rebuilt Temple described by Ezekiel.

 

[ralliann]

I'm not sure why you are switching the topic to 'who gets an inheritance of a portion of the land' when the topic is the covenants. None of what you quoted nullifies the covenant God made with the priests of Israel that they shall serve in the Temple forever: Jeremiah 33:14-22 -- "'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety... For thus says the Lord, 'David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel; and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually...

"'If you can break My covenant for the day and My covenant for the night, so that day and night will not be at their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant so that he will not have a son to reign on his throne, and with the Levitical priests, My ministers.'"

Since no one is able to change the time day and night arrives (despite Daylight Saving Time), no one is able to break God's covenant with the Levitical priests that they shall "never lack a man before (God)" to offer sacrifices in the Temple while it stands. That is fulfilled when the Branch of David "execute(s) justice and righteousness on earth," i.e., during the millennial kingdom reign on earth, in the rebuilt Temple described by Ezekiel.

See the disannulling of the carnal commandment taught in the book of Hebrews and the covenants being an inheritance.

 

[Jeffrey A]

See the disannulling of the carnal commandment taught in the book of Hebrews and the covenants being an inheritance.

What is "the carnal commandment"?

And are you suggesting that a covenant in the bible that is not explicitly involving "an inheritance" is therefore not a covenant at all, even though it is explicitly called a covenant?

 

[JLB777]

Not stated in Scripture.

That is personal opinion presented nowhere in Scripture, created for the sake of one's theology.

The Lord appeared to Abraham, to make covenant with him, before He became flesh.


When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.
Genesis 17:1-4


Do you understand that this was Jesus Christ who appeared to Abraham?


And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17





JLB

 

[JLB777]

No. . .the Greek words for "new" and "renewed" are not the same and do not have the same meaning.

Have you studied the two different words for “New” in the Greek,
(neos and Kainos) which is not really the point, because the foundation for the New Covenant is found in Hebrew; Jeremiah 31:31

New, Renewed, Repaired, Refreshed

FROM THE ROOT. —

 

[Clare73]

The Lord appeared to Abraham, to make covenant with him, before He became flesh.
When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations.
Genesis 17:1-4

Do you understand that this was Jesus Christ who appeared to Abraham?

And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. Galatians 3:17

Actually, that is not what Galatians 3:17 is presenting.

"In Christ" is not in the Greek manuscript I use.
It is in the Textus Receptus, where it is "to/toward Christ."

"The Mosaic law and covenant, given 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant, does not annul the Abrahamic covenant established by God to/toward Christ " (Galatians 3:17),
and which Abrahamic covenant of grace by faith (Genesis 15:6) is fulfilled in the New Covenant of grace by faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Galatians 3:17 is not presenting Jesus as appearing to Abraham.

 

[Clare73]

Have you studied the two different words for “New” in the Greek,
(neos and Kainos) which is not really the point, because the foundation for the New Covenant is found in Hebrew; Jeremiah 31:31

The "foundation" in Hebrew does not alter the meaning in Greek.

The multiple blood sacrifices which covered sin in the OT Hebrew, remits sin in the once-for-all NT Greek regarding the sacrifice.

The "new" (NT) covenant of Hebrews 8:13 is in contrast to the "old" (OT) covenant of Moses, which is obsolete, and is replaced by the "new" covenant of grace which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6) "to/toward Christ."

 

[Jeffrey A]

The "new" (NT) covenant of Hebrews 8:13 is in contrast to the "old" (OT) covenant of Moses, which is obsolete, and is replaced by the "new" covenant of grace which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant of grace (Genesis 15:6) "to/toward Christ."

That is not what Hebrews 8 says. Hebrews 8:13 says the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 (it is quoted) -- NOT the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17:2-7 (and certainly not the Land Covenant of Genesis 15:6) -- replaces the old covenant of the Law of Moses, by putting the Law of Moses into the hearts of the House of Israel and Judah so that they never forsake the Law again.

The reason the writer of Hebrews says that, is to make the point that God can make a new covenant (the "better covenant" of Hebrews 8:6) if he wants to, as He does even for the Law of Moses Covenant.

The "Better Covenant" of Hebrews 8:6 is the same covenant of Genesis 17:2-7 and Isaiah 55:1-7 and Luke 22:20, not the same covenant of Jeremiah 31. They are distinguished by the named party to whom the promises are made, and what those promises are.

 

[Clare73]

That is not what Hebrews 8 says. Hebrews 8:13 says the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 (it is quoted) -- NOT the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17:2-7 (and certainly not the Land Covenant of Genesis 15:6) -- replaces the old covenant of the Law of Moses,

That's what I said. . .

 

[Jeffrey A]

That's what I said. . .

Well I'm glad we agree. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 that God makes with the House of Israel and Judah to put the Law of Moses in their hearts so they never forsake it again is the Covenant that replaces the Law Covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai.

The "Better" Covenant of Hebrews 8:6 is the same "everlasting" covenant God made with Abraham at Genesis 17:2-7 that he would be the "father of a multitude of nations" so that He would be "God to you and to your descendants after you," the same covenant promise God repeated to Abraham at Genesis 22:18 that "in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed," which was a repeat of the promise God made to him in Genesis 12:3 -- "And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."

How do we know the better covenant of Hebrews 8:6 is the same covenant of Genesis 17:4 ("Behold my covenant is with you") and Genesis 22:16-18 ("By myself I have sworn")? Because Paul tells us it is the same covenant at Galatians 3:7-17 -- "Be sure that it is those who of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you [quoting Genesis 22:18].' ... Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as referring to many, but rather to one, 'And to your seed,' that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law (Covenant), which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."

So the Law Covenant could not invalidate the Covenant God made with Abraham that he would be the father of a multitude of nations by his Seed through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed, but the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 does 'replace' in a sense the Law Covenant in that God will place the Law of Moses in the hearts of the House of Israel so that they will never forsake the Law of Moses again. And that makes the point that God can make a new covenant if He wants to. And the new covenant He is talking about is the "Better" Covenant in Jesus' Blood, which isn't a "new" covenant at all, but was actually first ratified by God 430 years before the Law Covenant, when God made the promise to Abraham that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his seed, who was revealed to be Christ when he redeemed the whole world through his blood, especially those who believe in him.

That Better Covenant is NOT the same covenant of Jeremiah 31. It is the same covenant of Genesis 12:3, Genesis 17:2-7, Genesis 22:18, Isaiah 55:1-7, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, Galatians 3:7-17 and Hebrews 8:6 that devolves to "all that nations of the earth" by name. NOT Jeremiah 31, which devolves only to the House of Israel, by name.

 

[Clare73]

Well I'm glad we agree. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 that God makes with the House of Israel and Judah to put the Law of Moses in their hearts so they never forsake it again is the Covenant that replaces the Law Covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai.
The "Better" Covenant of Hebrews 8:6 is the same "everlasting" covenant God made with Abraham at Genesis 17:2-7.

Not unless you take Hebrews 8:6 out of the context of the entire book of Hebrews which is about Christ and his covenant being far superior to Moses and his covenant:
Christ himself being superior to the angels, superior to Moses, and to the Aaronic priests;
Christ's sacrificial work being superior to that of the OT High Priest; with a better covenant, a better sanctuary and a superior priestly order.

The "better" covenant is the "new covenant" of Christ ratified in his blood (Luke 22:20), which "new covenant" was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34, verified in Hebrews 8:8-13, and thoroughly explained in Hebrews 1-10.

Your understanding of the new covenant is not in agreement with the whole book of Hebrews.

 

[JLB777]

Actually, that is not what Galatians 3:17 is presenting.

"In Christ" is not in the Greek manuscript I use.
It is in the Textus Receptus, where it is "to/toward Christ."

"The Mosaic law and covenant, given 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant, does not annul the Abrahamic covenant established by God to/toward Christ " (Galatians 3:17),
and which Abrahamic covenant of grace by faith (Genesis 15:6) is fulfilled in the New Covenant of grace by faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Galatians 3:17 is not presenting Jesus as appearing to Abraham.

Of course the Law of Moses doesn’t annul the covenant that Jesus Christ made with Abraham.

Jesus actually fulfilled His part of the blood letting of that blood covenant when He became flesh.

The Lord appeared to Abraham and made covenant with him.

We are grafted into that Covenant in Christ and are a part of the Israel of God, having been grafted into the natural olive tree.


JLB

 

[JLB777]

The "foundation" in Hebrew does not alter the meaning in Greek.

Of course not.

Do you understand the difference between Kainos and Neos?

 

[ralliann]

Of course the Law of Moses doesn’t annul the covenant that Jesus Christ made with Abraham.

Jesus actually fulfilled His part of the blood letting of that blood covenant when He became flesh.

The Lord appeared to Abraham and made covenant with him.

The Lord made two covenants with Abraham, not just one.

We are grafted into that Covenant in Christ and are a part of the Israel of God, having been grafted into the natural olive tree.
JLB

Natural? What do you mean? The firstborn have a portion of inheritance above their brethren. Which is not according to genealogy.

 

[ralliann]

What is "the carnal commandment"?

Genealogy, as well as the circumcision. Born of promise, circumcision of heart.

What is "the carnal commandment"?

And are you suggesting that a covenant in the bible that is not explicitly involving "an inheritance" is therefore not a covenant at all, even though it is explicitly called a covenant?[/QUOTE]
No. I am suggesting two covenants.