• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Covenants

Status
Not open for further replies.

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

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 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 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 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
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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 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 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
2Cr 7:1 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 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 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 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
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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 Christ all of those promises are our's.

Now you may not believe that but I do and the Word of God agrees with me. I still don't understand how you can claim forgiveness of sins because of the shed blood of the New Covenant and yet deny that the New Covenant is in effect. If it isn't then you are dead in your sins with no hope for forgiveness. You have no forgiveness of your sins apart from the shed blood of Christ.

GLJCA
 
Upvote 0

GLJCA

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2005
1,152
57
74
Louisiana
✟1,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? It just seems that maybe you have a hard time understanding that which is written.

I have listed many many questions that you keep ignoring or dodging. It does no good to discuss with someone who makes the discussion one-sided. I have addressed every question and every assertion that you have and you have ignored and dodged ALL of mine. I show you scriptural proof of my belief and you maintain that I haven't. Are you just not reading my posts?

I asked you before what Paul meant when he said that we are able ministers of the New Testament? 2Cor 3:6
I asked you how we could be ministers of something that doesn't exist?
You say we only receive one promise which is the promise of the Spirit through faith and I asked you how it is that Paul equates us as children of promise just like Isaac yet Isaac does not just receive one promise? If I am a child of promise just like Isaac then all the promises that he receives, I receive.
You have ignored and dodged those questions among many others.

When and if you ever answer my questions then we will continue with the discussion until then, I see no profit in talking to a wall.

GLJCA
 
Upvote 0

ddub85

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2005
712
5
55
✟887.00
Faith
Christian
@ GLJCA

Quote:
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 scripture(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.
I directly accuse you of producing NO SCRIPTURE which states we're currently under the NC, and that the NC is for Gentiles.
When you list a scripture that's accompanied by your opinion, that doesn't count, especially when your opinion is refuted.
When I say the NC is for Jews, I show you scripture which directly makes that statement. That would be the qualitative difference. You can't produce scriptuer which does that, and that's a fact. If it isn't, then kindly display those scriptures right here, right now.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

ddub85

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2005
712
5
55
✟887.00
Faith
Christian
@ GLJCA

Quote:
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.
No, I'm not dodging that statement at all. I AGREE with that statement. The problem comes in when you change scripture from promise (SINGULAR) to promises (PLURAL). That's not what the Bible says, and so I disagree.
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.
If you want to argue about what Isaac inherits, that's fine with me. But the fact will still remain that we inherit the ONE PROMISE that Isaac is under. That is what the Bible says. That one promise that Isaac is under is equated to us according to the Bible. This is confirmed by Paul throughout the Bible.

You are attempting to add PROMISES (PLURAL) to this, and it's not what the Bible says.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

ddub85

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2005
712
5
55
✟887.00
Faith
Christian
@ GLJCA

Quote:
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 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.
"Joint-heirs with Christ". What is a joint-heir? One who receives what he has been "ALLOTTED". What have we Gentiles been allotted according to the Bible? The one promise, pulled out of many, given to Abraham. Period. If you have more promises than that one, list them. All that has been promised to us Gentiles is wrapped up in that one promise.
2Cr 1:20 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
In Christ, not "allotted" to all in Christ. Both Jew and Gentile are in Christ, hence all of the promises are in Christ. It DOES NOT say all of the promises are to Gentiles. Therefore, you can't use this verse.
2Cr 7:1 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.
These promises you cite are all connected to the one promise that Paul says is allotted to Gentiles. So you're misquoting Paul by saying he's including all promises.
Also, consider the fact that it is Paul Who says we receive what we've been allotted, and that we have been allotted the one promise amongst the many. He would be contradicting himself if you were correct. Scripture verifies scripture.
Hbr 6:12 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.
If you would just read a couple of verses further, you would see that the writer cites the example of a promise we Gentiles have been EXCLUDED from by Paul. The promise in Hbr 6:14 is one we Gentiles have been excluded from by Paul as he clearly says we've been allotted the single promise (all nations blessed), and NOT including us in any of the other promises given
to Abraham. Again, the Bible corrects your position.
Hbr 8:6 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.
This verse says Christ is mediator of promises. This says absolutely nothing about Gentiles being under these promises.
2Pe 1:4 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.
This is speaking to Hebrews, not Gentiles. Just read v. 1:18 in which Peter says he's speaking to those with him at the holy mount, which didn't include Gentiles.
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.
YOU will say, but the Bible doesn't say. You are contradicting the word of God.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

ddub85

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2005
712
5
55
✟887.00
Faith
Christian
@ GLJCA

Quote:
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?
You need look no further than Jonah. God sent him as an able minister to Nineveh. Was his ministry for him? No. Was he an able minister? Yes. Your theory doesn't hold water.
Why do you keep dodging my questions?
I haven't dodged ANY of your questions. If I have, ask them now and I'll gladly answer.
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?
Nope. "Into affect"? No. Legal efficacy? Legal authority? Of legal force? Yes.
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
Exactly! And as you can see, none of this adds up to in affect. The circus is coming to town. All of the necessary legal permits have been signed and documented. It has been established. Is it here and in action? No! It has been established. That is what we're talking about here.
Now did Jesus Christ die? Yep! Therefore the testament is in firmly, surely, validly in place.
Correct! In place, established. Begun? No.
All wrestling that you are doing is for nothing. You are denying the forgiveness of your sins.
That's a ridiculous conclusion based upon what I've said. I've never denied forgiveness of sins. What you're denying is the fact that the Bible says He died for the gorgiveness of sins in the OC.
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,...
Ok, true,...
... and because we are joint-heirs with Christ all of those promises are our's.
Not true. Because we are joint-heirs, we are to receive what we've been allotted. We were never allotted promises.

Therefore what you say simply isn't true.
Now you may not believe that but I do and the Word of God agrees with me. I still don't understand how you can claim forgiveness of sins because of the shed blood of the New Covenant and yet deny that the New Covenant is in effect.
I don't deny the forgiveness of sins. The Bible doesn't say the forgiveness of sins is because of the NC, YOU say that.
If it isn't then you are dead in your sins with no hope for forgiveness. You have no forgiveness of your sins apart from the shed blood of Christ.
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.

"For the redemption... under the first testament." See that? The blood of Christ is for the OC as well. You don't include that in anything you say. You ignore it, thereby flawing your theology.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

ddub85

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2005
712
5
55
✟887.00
Faith
Christian
@ GLJCA

Quote:
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?
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? It just seems that maybe you have a hard time understanding that which is written.
I have listed many many questions that you keep ignoring or dodging. It does no good to discuss with someone who makes the discussion one-sided. I have addressed every question and every assertion that you have and you have ignored and dodged ALL of mine. I show you scriptural proof of my belief and you maintain that I haven't. Are you just not reading my posts?
I asked you before what Paul meant when he said that we are able ministers of the New Testament? 2Cor 3:6
See above.
I asked you how we could be ministers of something that doesn't exist?
See above
You say we only receive one promise which is the promise of the Spirit through faith and I asked you how it is that Paul equates us as children of promise just like Isaac yet Isaac does not just receive one promise? If I am a child of promise just like Isaac then all the promises that he receives, I receive.
See above.
You have ignored and dodged those questions among many others.
I haven't ignored or dodged any of your questions. There's no reason to dodge them.
When and if you ever answer my questions then we will continue with the discussion until then, I see no profit in talking to a wall.
All are answered. Now respond to those answers rather than only seeing what you have written.

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.