Covenant and New Covenant theology

[ICONO'CLAST]

Yes to your first question.

For your 2nd point, my view is that, prior to Paul being appointed by God to be the apostle to the Gentiles, gentiles in the "church" in the first part of Acts had to convert to Judaism to be inside that "church".

That means they had to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses (Exodus 12:48. Acts 15:1)

No....Acts 15 says they did not need to do this.

 

[Guojing]

No....Acts 15 says they did not need to do this.

Of course, but that was the final decision made by the Council.

I am saying what those believers stated at the beginning of Acts 15 was actually correct under Israel's program. They are merely reinforcing the Exodus passage.

Those believers of course did not realize that Israel in Acts 15 was no longer God's favorite nation since it was a mystery that was revealed to Paul. The nation has fallen (Romans 11:11)

 

[BABerean2]

Those believers of course did not realize that Israel in Acts 15 was no longer God's favorite nation since it was a mystery that was revealed to Paul. The nation has fallen (Romans 11:11)

Paul said it was not a mystery to Hosea.

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:


.

 

[Guojing]

Paul said it was not a mystery to Hosea.

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
.

Just because Paul used the OT to illustrate understanding of the mystery, does not mean those who prophesied in the OT understood what they were saying.

Otherwise, you will end up saying everyone in the OT also understood that Jesus had to die on the cross for the sins of Israel, and be resurrected on the 3rd day, just because, on hindsight, we learn from Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4 that it was "according to Scripture".

The clear evidence of my above point, was how Peter ended up being so disillusioned with Christ arrest that he denied he knew Jesus 3 times. And at the day of his resurrection, no one was camping outside the tomb counting down to his resurrection.

 

[BABerean2]

Just because Paul used the OT to illustrate understanding of the mystery, does not mean those who prophesied in the OT understood what they were saying.

Otherwise, you will end up saying everyone in the OT also understood that Jesus had to die on the cross for the sins of Israel, and be resurrected on the 3rd day, just because, on hindsight, we learn from Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-4 that it was "according to Scripture".

The clear evidence of my above point, was how Peter ended up being so disillusioned with Christ arrest that he denied he knew Jesus 3 times. And at the day of his resurrection, no one was camping outside the tomb counting down to his resurrection.

It was not a "mystery" after the greatest OT Bible study in history, which occurred on the road to Emmaus.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


I have often heard Dispensationalists make the following false claim...

"The Gentile Church was a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament."


On the Day of Pentecost about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later.
Therefore, the Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church", as Dispensationalists often infer in an attempt to make their Two Peoples of God doctrine work.
To this day the Church is made up of all races of people.


Did those in the OT completely understand how the Messiah would take away sin?
No.

Did the disciples completely understand it before He rose from the dead?
No.

The Road to Emmaus Bible study revealed the truth to them.


.

 

[Guojing]

It was not a "mystery" after the greatest OT Bible study in history, which occurred on the road to Emmaus.

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


I have often heard Dispensationalists make the following false claim...

"The Gentile Church was a mystery not revealed in the Old Testament."


On the Day of Pentecost about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later.
Therefore, the Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church", as Dispensationalists often infer in an attempt to make their Two Peoples of God doctrine work.
To this day the Church is made up of all races of people.


Did those in the OT completely understand how the Messiah would take away sin?
No.

Did the disciples completely understand it before He rose from the dead?
No.

The Road to Emmaus Bible study revealed the truth to them.


.

Are you saying whatever the ascended Christ taught Paul after the latter was saved, you believe it was the same as what was taught to the 11 before Christ ascended?

 

[BABerean2]

Are you saying whatever the ascended Christ taught Paul after the latter was saved, you believe it was the same as what was taught to the 11 before Christ ascended?

God is not the author of confusion.
He does not tell two different stories.
The same is true for Christ.

Why would Christ teach the disciples one thing on the road to Emmaus, and then teach Paul something different?
There is only one Gospel found in the New Testament.

Paul's warning in Galatians 1:6-9 applies to all races of people.
Read what Paul said about genealogies in Titus 3:9.

.

 

[Guojing]

God is not the author of confusion.
He does not tell two different stories.
The same is true for Christ.

Why would Christ teach the disciples one thing on the road to Emmaus, and then teach Paul something different?
There is only one Gospel found in the New Testament.

Paul's warning in Galatians 1:6-9 applies to all races of people.
Read what Paul said about genealogies in Titus 3:9.

.

Because Israel was given another chance, a year, after crucifying their Messiah, to repent of that wicked act and be water baptized.

Jesus talked about this 1 year extension in his parable of the barren fig tree Luke 13:6-9

That message, "repent of killing your Messiah and be water baptized" was what Peter was preaching to Israel in Acts 2:36-38 and Acts 3:14-21

But after the leaders killed Stephen at the end of that 1 year extension. That was when Israel was blinded and the grace dispensation to the Gentiles began (Romans 11:11)

 

[BABerean2]

Because Israel was given another chance, a year, after crucifying their Messiah, to repent of that wicked act and be water baptized.

How did you convert the 50 days of Pentecost into a "year"?

.

 

[claninja]

Yes to your first question.

I'm glad we agree.

So back to the 7 Churches in Revelation that believe in Christ. How are they not the body of Christ?

For your 2nd point, my view is that, prior to Paul being appointed by God to be the apostle to the Gentiles, gentiles in the "church" in the first part of Acts had to convert to Judaism to be inside that "church".

That means they had to be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses (Exodus 12:48. Acts 15:1)

No disagreement, that many Jews tried to get the Gentiles circumcised and to obey the Law of Moses in order to become a part of God's people after the Cross. That, as you have pointed out, is evidenced in the book of Acts.

But this doesn't address my 2nd point. Are God's people (the church) now under the old covenant or new covenant?


Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away

Galatians 4:30-31 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

 

[Guojing]

I'm glad we agree.

So back to the 7 Churches in Revelation that believe in Christ. How are they not the body of Christ?



No disagreement, that many Jews tried to get the Gentiles circumcised and to obey the Law of Moses in order to become a part of God's people after the Cross. That, as you have pointed out, is evidenced in the book of Acts.

But this doesn't address my 2nd point. Are God's people (the church) now under the old covenant or new covenant?


Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away

Galatians 4:30-31 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

Hebrews 8:8 will answer that 2nd point of yours, if you are willing to understand it literally.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

1) The new covenant promised by God is not here yet, it will be made in the future when Israel as a nation finally accepts Jesus as their Messiah.

2) And even then, it will be made with the nation Israel, and not the Body of Christ.

 

[Guojing]

How did you convert the 50 days of Pentecost into a "year"?

.

I stated that Stephen was very likely stoned to death about 1 year after the cruxifiction. That marked the start of the nation Israel being blinded by God, as stated in Romans 11:25.

You have another understanding of the timing of his death?

 

[BABerean2]

I stated that Stephen was very likely stoned to death about 1 year after the cruxifiction. That marked the start of the nation Israel being blinded by God, as stated in Romans 11:25.

Was the whole nation of Israel "partially" blinded, or was part of the nation blinded, and part of the nation was not blinded?


Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:1-5.


.

 

[jgr]

1) The new covenant promised by God is not here yet

So you're still in your sin?

2) And even then, it will be made with the nation Israel

Genetically, the entire human race.

 

[Guojing]

Was the whole nation of Israel "partially" blinded, or was part of the nation blinded, and part of the nation was not blinded?


Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:1-5.


.

I think we have discussed this at length in this thread already, so let's not return to that.

I believe the nation is blinded, you believed that the remnant that believew has now become the nation Israel.

We can agree to disagree there, but my new question to you is, do you believe Stephen was killed sometime at the end of the 1 year period after the cruxifiction?

 

[Guojing]

So you're still in your sin?



Genetically, the entire human race.

The Body of Christ has been declared righteous by believing in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

We are not the House of Israel nor the House of Judah.

 

[jgr]

The Body of Christ has been declared righteous by believing in 1 Cor 15:1-4.

We are not the House of Israel nor the House of Judah.

Under the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6)

 

[BABerean2]

I believe the nation is blinded, you believed that the remnant that believew has now become the nation Israel.

It has nothing to do with what I believe, or with what you believe.

What does the text of Romans 11:1-5 say about the "remnant", which proves all of the Israelites have not been "partially" blinded.

Can you face the reality of what God's Word says, and admit that your man-made doctrine is wrong?

.

 

[Guojing]

Under the New Covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6)

You do agree that, in the English language, "the days come" and "will make" must mean it is not made NOW correct?

Otherwise why would the author of Hebrews, who is writing to the Jews, use the words "will make"?

As I said, you have to be willing to read the KJV English literally, to understand what I am saying.

 

[Guojing]

It has nothing to do with what I believe, or with what you believe.

What does the text of Romans 11:1-5 say about the "remnant", which proves all of the Israelites have not been "partially" blinded.

Can you face the reality of what God's Word says, and admit that your man-made doctrine is wrong?

.

You cannot see that, in our minds, we are always the protagonist, so we will naturally think that we are the ones with the correct thinking, and the other person, by definition the antagonist, is wrong?