Covenants

[ddub85]

@ 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]

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.

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:

1. The law isn't a promise.
2. Covenants are promises.
3. 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:

1. The law isn't a promise.
2. Covenants are not promises, alone.
3. The New Covenant's main component is not the law.

Or to build by each point:

1. 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
2. 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)
3. 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]

@ 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]

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?

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).

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]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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]

"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]

@ 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]

@ 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 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 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 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]

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

 

[GLJCA]

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]

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]

>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]

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 [it] 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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by franky67
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]

@ 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!