Covenants

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

Ddub - They were doing as Christ told them to do. But let's tell the whole truth. Christ also said in the same breath, Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Uh – you did not tell me WHY Gentiles were drinking the cup of the NEW covenant Ddub. Having trouble keeping up with me here?
I can type slower for you if that will help.
Why would Gentiles be drinking the cup of the NEW covenant? – 1 Cor 11:25.
Hmmm?
So yes – let’s get the whole truth out here!

Why would we not drink the blood? The blood is for all under Christ. Christ is not the mediator of one covenant according to the Bible.

Why would Christ tell the Corinthians to “commune” if Christ were not going to “commune” with them?? (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16).
What was the purpose (in your view) of the Lord’s supper for the Corinthians?
Especially – tell us the purpose for the Gentiles to do !

Because the Corinthians were in Christ as well, and His blood saves them as well! Again, Christ isn't a mediator of one! Read your Bible!

What did Christ mean when He said – “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’” ???
It appears you have both Jew and Gentile communing with… no one!!!!

It only appears that way when you "infer" for no reason. Christ said that because that's what it is! Did Christ say that's all it is? No! The bible tells us clearly that the blood is for the sins of the Old Covenant s well, and that Christ isn't a mediator of only one covenant.

Although off-topic, “that day” refers to the day the kingdom would come. The kingdom came on Pentecost in Acts 2 with the establishment of the church. The church is God’s kingdom on earth, until delivered up to the Father on the last day.

That's incorrect, but I digress. Another time and day maybe.

By way of summary YOU claim:-Christ is the mediator a covenant that is not in effect.

The Bible claims Christ isn't the mediator of only one covenant. Do you disagree? And are you one who believes that all covenants are in effect at the same time?

-Christ enacted a covenant that is not in effect.

Just like He did in Gen 15 with the Abrahamic Covenant. He establishes before He activates. So what's the problem? I have a question for you. When was the Abrahamic Covenant activated?
-

Christ told Jew and Gentile to partake of the cup of the new covenant that is not in effect.

He told both to drink His blood, as it pertains to both. He didn't tell both to partake of the New Covenant. You're reaching,... errrr... "inferring" again.

-Christ told Jew and Gentile to have communion, but He is not partaking with them.

Until that day in His Father's kingdom.

-Christ told Gentiles to commune as part of a covenant that they have no part in.

He told them to drink His blood which saves them. Why is that bothering you?

-Paul and others were enabled by God to be ministers of a covenant that is not in effect.LOL !

Yep, just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,...

Ddub - "Until that day", and today is not that day. Uh-oh!

Finally got one right! Today is not that day. Pentecost in Acts 2 was.

So is this your date for the beginning of the New Covenant?

Ddub - The blood shed by Christ was for all, and for both the Old and New Covenants. Both Jews and Gentiles are included in the Old Covenant (Gal. 3), and the New Covenant is for Jews only (Hbr. 8:6).

Wrong on both covenants remarks…

Prove it. Let's see some scripture to go with that claim.

The OLD covenant was made only with physical Israel at Sinai and was ratified with the blood of animals.

Wrong. You've been shown WITH SCRITPURE (Gal 3:17) that the law is not the covenant. So this point has been disproven WITH SCRIPTURE!

The NEW covenant can be made by ALL men as promised with God and was ratified by the blood of Christ.

My Bible, in both Jeremiah and Hebrews, says the New Covenant is for the hourse of Israel and the house of Judah. I know of NO SCRIPTURE which says "the New Covenant can be made by ALL men", and I will go on record to say your statement that God promised it to ALL men is pure fiction, conjured up by your "inference", which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible.

Now, I'm saying that I can support these claims with scripture, and you CANNOT support your claims with scripture. If that is true, then who should people believe? Me or you?

If I'm incorrect, prove it right now WITH SCRIPTURE! Show the scriptures which say what you're saying, or admit that your belief is pure inference.

The promise [Gal. 4:28] that came through Abraham was for ALL nations to be blessed through his seed – which was Christ.

Amen!

The NEW covenant is a covenant for ALL nations to be made with Christ for salvation – something the OLD could not do.

Wait a minute... didn't you just say that the Abrahamic Covenant was for ALL nations? Now you're saying that the New Covenant is for ALL nations. Are you saying that the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant? Please thoroughly explain.

You also said that the Old couldn't bring salvation, but Paul said it could in Gal 3. One of you is wrong. Guess who it is?

Christ mediates that NEW covenant right now, as it has been made into law upon better promises than the old had.

Christ is not a mediator of one covenant! When did Christ activate the Abrahamic Covenant? This answer should clear up a lot of things.

I wish you and your family the very best in 2009! Happy New Year to you, and all who read this!

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub –

Allow me to cut through so much of the “clutter” that you offered in your last post.


Ddub - Jonah is the solid, biblical proof of that fact.

You never showed that Jonah did not minister under and was not accountable to God’s word – the same as Nineveh. When you do that you will have a point to make.

Ddub - I hope you do realize that "enact" and "establish" are synonymous.

I see that – you need to apply what they mean. The NEW covenant was enacted, that is, made into law – Hb 8:6. Paul was “enabled” as a minister of that NEW covenant – 2Cor 3:6. You continue to struggle with the application and the tense of the words that could help you understand the truth.

Ddub - So what we see here [Heb 8:6] is two different words with two different meanings.
It is regrettable you are so easily confused. 1.) Obtained applies to the ministry of Christ – a ministry which He has “obtained” – present tense, attained, reached.
2.) Enacted applies to His covenant – perfect tense, enacted, made into law. As the Greek used in Hebrews 8:6 indicates, both words are present actions.
I noticed you made no comment for the SECOND time about “perfect tense”. Let me repeat what I have said before – twice – without comment from you…
>>>The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.<<<
This isn’t something that is going to happen – it is something “completed in the past”! Now if you still don’t understand – just ask and I will “learn” you again. But acknowledge the point as I will not allow you to ignore it !
- - -
Exegesis of Hebrews 8:

Ddub, WHERE is YOUR exegesis??? I gave mine – so now would be a great time for me to see YOURS. Do you have one? It is easy enough to snipe at someone else’s work. What have YOU got to offer?

Ddub - The law IS NOT the Old Covenant, and Gal. 3:17 makes that fact very clear.

“The law” IS a part of the OLD covenant – as established quite clearly here in Hebrews 8. The writer speaks of the Levitical priesthood, of Moses, and the gives the prophecy of Jeremiah speaking to Israel in context with the covenant. The law of verse 8:4 is the “first” covenant of verse 7, and is the “old” covenant of verse 13.

Galatians 3:17 NEVER uses the word “old”. It never uses the word “old” in reference to any covenant, but Heb 8:13 does – which is context clear that the law given at Sinai is the OLD covenant. You want to say that because the covenant made with Abraham is older than the covenant made at Sinai, that the covenant with Abraham is the old covenant. SORRY – scripture does not use the word old is that manner. Please use Bible words in Bible ways !!!

Ddub - Errr... please don't add to the words of the Bible [verse 9].
Wah!I am giving an EXEGESIS ! I am explaining to you what I think the verse means – pay attention. And even at that – I accurately relayed what the passage already says. WHERE is YOUR exegesis ?
Ddub - Again you're confusing the law with the Old Covenant…
You have your definitions wrong and/or you are making a division where one does not exist. The word “OLD” can not be found in Gal 3. “Please don’t add words to the scriptures”… which you have done here and continue to do in Galatians 3.
First you force the word “old” into Galatians 3:17 – and then you want to force that misplaced assumption into the context of Hebrews 8 - LOL. I would call this “hermeNUTics"! My exegesis of Hebrews 8, the context there, and the words found therein, is accurate !
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - Hbr 9:15 says the blood of Christ is for the sins of the Old Covenant. Could you please explain?

Yes I can – you need it desperately…

Your first problem was not reading the verse correctly, and then repeating/paraphrasing the verse incorrectly. The verse reads…

Hebrews 9:15 - And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. ASV

The verse says that the DEATH of Christ was for the redemption of the “transgressions” under the OLD covenant – NOT that His blood ratified the OLD covenant or that He mediated the OLD. More on this below.

I am not surprised you have not paid attention to the stark contrast that is made in Hebrews 8-10 between the NEW and Old covenant and the difference in the blood that ratified each covenant. Christ became a priest and entered into the holy place in the perfect tabernacle (heaven), and there with His own blood obtained eternal redemption – for the faithful of all times (Heb. 9:11-15)!

Verse 15 – “And for this cause…”(Christ’s sacrifice being better than the Levitical sacrifices – see the previous 4 verses), “He is the mediator of a NEW covenant…”! Christ being a priest, His offering of sacrifice, and His obtaining of eternal redemption in this fashion was not possible under the OLD – so there had to be a New covenant within which Christ could do this! Christ mediates a NEW covenant ! IF Christ is not mediating NOW, there is no redemption now !

“…A death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first [old] covenant…”

The death (ei. blood) of Christ also obtained redemption for those reckoned “righteous” that lived under the first (Old) covenant. These sins God “passed over” knowing that the day would come when the blood of Christ would redeem these as well. Cf. Romans 3:25.

“…they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

The “called” receive the redemption promised via the blood of Christ. Christians are “called” by the Gospel – cf. 2 Ths 2:14. The promise of redemption came through a covenant God made with Abraham. The reality of redemption comes through a covenant mediated with Christ. (More about this below.)
- - - - - - - - -

Verse 18 continues telling us how the first/old covenant was also ratified by blood - the blood of calves and goats – the mediator being Moses! This first/OLD covenant was not ratified or mediated by Christ!



Ddub - This verse [verse 13] may be the most telling. Did the writer say "is growing old", or "has died"?
The writer states the OLD was passing away. WHY did the writer say the Old was decaying (old and so about to be abrogated – Thayer), vanishing, waxing old? This is the more important question. The writer already said the New covenant is “enacted” (made into law) and the Old was “vanishing away” (disappearing), this, as more people were converted to Christ out of Judaism. It is an easy concept for those that know the truth and those that can read. If the Old was not passing away, then what was it doing according to this verse?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - No, I'm saying that there is no need to be any kind of Israel to be saved, as God is no respector of persons…

But isn’t the New covenant, according to you, only for the Jews? God MUST be a respecter of persons according to you.

…God saves Gentiles just like He saves Jews, and therefore we don't have to become Israel of any kind, physical or spiritual, to be saved. If you disagree in any way, please explain.

I am not certain you believe this. If you believe the New covenant is only for the Jews, then Jews are not saved “just like” the Gentiles - the blood of Christ notwithstanding.

I believe all of the saved in Christ today are “spiritual Israel” – “Israel” metaphorically meaning the “people” of God and nothing more. These saved people are the ones that have received “circumcision of the heart” and are a “Jew inwardly”, regardless of their nationality.
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - By spoon-feed, do you mean the Bible actually saying it, rather than you "inferring"?

Of course! And inference is valid. YOU attempt to use it (although with an invalid application) to make the INFERENCE that Jonah’s fate was different that those in Nineveh. I can see that inference usage for you is acceptable, but for anyone else it is prohibited.
- - - - -
Continued below...

 

[Apollos1]

continued...

Ddub - Here [Gal 4:28] you have Paul himself declaring that he's under the same covenant as Isaac, and YOU have the audacity to say that this isn't what he means!

Your indignation is misplaced – save it ! And now, follow the context here within the allegory.

-In my last post I said the “promise” mentioned here is the promise of inheritance (salvation) through Jesus Christ. That’s not right.
-What you said above, that’s not right. Paul’s point has nothing to do with being under a covenant.

Following the allegory, we must recognize that Isaac was promised to Abraham when Abraham had no heir – see Genesis 15 – see verse 4 specifically. Paul’s point in the context of the allegory is that just as Isaac was a child of promise to Abraham, Christians (as the “spiritual” children of Abraham – see Gal 3:7,16,18, & 29) are children of “promise” to Abraham – see Genesis 12 – verse 2 specifically.

“Now we (Christians), brethren, as Isaac was (as promised to Abraham), are the children of promise (as promised to Abraham).” All of this being within the context of the allegory !
- - - - - - - - -

Ddub - Paul "ministered" the NC, he was not under it.
Your misconception of his “ministry” leads me to ask you –
Where and How did Paul “minister” this covenant??? You say Paul was not accountable to the New covenant or any of it tenets (that is what you are saying), so when/where/how did Paul minister to it without being under it??? Point that out for me. What you will find (if you answer this question at all) is that Paul’s writings, travel, and preaching all show he was under and ministered to the NEW covenant – aka the New Testament.

Ddub - Are you now telling me that the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant?
No – I am not saying this. Abraham (a man) made a covenant with God. Promises were made to Abraham under this covenant.
Later, Israel (a nation) made a covenant (the “Old”) with God at Sinai. Promises were made to this nation under this covenant.
Today, all nations can make a covenant (the “New”) with God through Christ. Promises are made to all nations under this covenant. I am not accountable to either of the first two – I never have been. Christ – not Abraham or Moses – is the mediator between God and man.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - Why would we not drink the blood?

BECAUSE it is the cup of the NEW covenant! – 1 Cor. 11:25 / Luke 22:20
WHY would Gentiles partake in the cup of the NEW covenant? YOU say the NEW covenant is NOT for the Gentiles!
This is the question you need to answer. Can you explain why Gentiles drink the cup?

Ddub - The blood is for all under Christ.

True – so this MUST means ALL are under the NEW covenant! Why?
Because the cup is the NEW covenant in His blood – 1 Cor. 11:25.
These instructions were given to both Jew and Gentile at Corinth. (Your theology just went down in flames !)

Ddub - Christ is not the mediator of one covenant according to the Bible.

You won’t find any scriptural support for this. Please list the verses you think says Christ mediated more than ONE covenant so I can correct you. I answered Heb 9:15 above.

Animal blood ratified the covenant God made with Abraham – see Genesis 15.
Animal blood ratified the covenant God made with Israel –see Hebrews 9:18-20.
See also Exodus 24 – specifically verse 8.
- - - - - - - - -

Apollos asked last post –
Why would Christ tell the Corinthians to “commune” if Christ were not going to “commune” with them?? (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16).
What was the purpose (in your view) of the Lord’s supper for the Corinthians?
Especially – tell us the purpose for the Gentiles to do this !
Ddub replied - Because the Corinthians were in Christ as well, and His blood saves them as well!

This is just another one of your half-answers. Follow me here if you can…
Christ’s blood is the blood of the NEW covenant – 1Cor 11:15.
Christians “commune” through the cup of the New covenant - 1 Cor. 10:16.
If the New covenant has not been “activated”…
HOW are Christians “communing” with each other???
Why would Christ tell them to “This do…” when Christ isn’t “communing” ? – 1 Cor 11:25.
Your theology has destroyed the communion of the Lord !!! How tragic !!!
- - - - - - - - - -




Ddub - My Bible, in both Jeremiah and Hebrews, says the New Covenant is for the hourse of Israel and the house of Judah.

Why do you ADD that word “ONLY” into Heb 8:8 ? Does it read that God would make a new covenant with Israel & Judah… ONLY? Why forget to whom Jeremiah was talking to? Why so presumptuous? And then look at verse 10.

It states here (vs. 10) that the New covenant is “for” the house (family) of Israel (God’s people – cf. Gal. 6:16). You have already agreed that we are the “seed” of Abraham and the sons of Abraham by faith in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:7,29). Why are Christians not the “Israel” of God today?


Ddub - Wait a minute... didn't you just say that the Abrahamic Covenant was for ALL nations?

No – I did not. You read your errant theology into my remarks as you do into scripture.
The covenant that was made with Abraham only provided a promise to Abraham for all nations to be blessed – through his seed. This promise was not made with ALL nations – it was made with Abraham – duh!

Christ has made it possible for all nations to be blessed through the New covenant that His blood made possible. When Christ shed His blood and the New covenant became a reality, the promise/covenant with Abraham to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed was fulfilled.

Summation of YOUR claims:
-Christ is the mediator a covenant that is not in effect.
(Christ could NOT be a priest, offer sacrifices, or obtain redemption under any other covenant than the NEW – thus He “enacted” a NEW covenant.)

-Christ enacted a covenant that is not in effect.
(If the NEW covenant is not in effect – there is no redemption at this present time.)

-Christ told Jew and Gentile to partake of the cup of the new covenant that is not in effect.
(For some reason you say Christ told them to drink it with no real purpose in mind – a kind of “Just do it.” thinking that you have applied to the communion of the Lord.)

-Christ told Jew and Gentile to have communion, but He is not partaking with them.
(Your misunderstanding of the “kingdom” and New Covenant has Christ sitting idle in communion and in the redemption of man.)

-Christ told Gentiles to commune as part of a covenant that they have no part in.
(You say the blood of the New covenant is to “save them” but no one seems to understand HOW – because Gentiles aren’t a part of the New covenant according to you. How then can Gentiles partake of the “blood of the new covenant”.)

-Paul and others were enabled by God to be ministers of a covenant that is not in effect.
(You say Paul and others “ministered” FOR (but not under) the NEW covenant, but you can’t show where/ how/ or when anyone did such a thing.

>The covenant with Abraham went into effect when ratified by animal blood in Genesis 15.
>The OLD covenant went into effect at Sinai when ratified by the blood of animals in Exodus 24.
>Christ shed His blood of the NEW covenant at Calvary. (Hmmm, I wonder… when did the NEW covenant go into effect? Hmmm… )

I am hopeful that this post helps to shed an abundance of light upon the wreckless theology that you hold so dear.

I will add that you may want to think about writing your summation to this thread. You and I have “whipped” it about as far as I think it can go.

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

You never showed that Jonah did not minister under and was not accountable to God’s word – the same as Nineveh. When you do that you will have a point to make.

Why are you looking for an escape clause? It's obvious to the entire world that Jonah did minister under God's word, and that all of us are accountable to God's word. There is no one who will dispute this I hope.
But Jonah was NOT accountable to the same fate as Nineveh. That would be the point I made, and the point you've satisfied yourself with avoiding. Jonah wasn't from there, but was sent there to "minister" to them about THEIR fate, not his own. You're attempting to throw an all-world blanket over this fact, but it won't work. God doesn't punish the entire world for what Nineveh did. The truth sits there, and waits for you to address it. So again, no one is arguing wheter Jonah is a minister of, or accountable to, God's word. The disagreement is whether or not Jonah was accountable for what he ministered to Nineveh, a place in which he was not a part of, nor was he involved in their sin.
Ddub - I hope you do realize that "enact" and "establish" are synonymous.

I see that – you need to apply what they mean. The NEW covenant was enacted, that is, made into law – Hb 8:6.

The Abrahamic Covenant was "enacted" in Gen. 15. So will you now argue it started then? (You've already said that it started at Sinai). As you can see, your theology is simply misguided.

Paul was “enabled” as a minister of that NEW covenant – 2Cor 3:6. You continue to struggle with the application and the tense of the words that could help you understand the truth.

I have no problem with Paul being "enabled" as a minister of the the NC. The problem we're having is that this DOES NOT mean the covenant is active, and that's what you're attempting to say. So the problem is that you're attempting to say something that the Bible does not. That would be the problem. An enabled minister doesn't activate a covenant. Blood activates a covenant. See the difference?
Ddub - So what we see here [Heb 8:6] is two different words with two different meanings.

It is regrettable you are so easily confused.

So... we don't have two different words with two different meanings? Yes or no?

1.) Obtained applies to the ministry of Christ – a ministry which He has “obtained” – present tense, attained, reached.
2.) Enacted applies to His covenant – perfect tense, enacted, made into law. As the Greek used in Hebrews 8:6 indicates, both words are present actions.

You're repeating what we already agree upon! They are both present actions, but they have DIFFERENT MEANINGS!!! That would be the point! One is something that has been attained (OBTAINED), and the other is something that has ben established (ENACTED). There is a DIFFERENCE in the two actions. That would be the point. The ministry has been obtained, and the new covenant has been enacted. That's what the Bible says, which disagrees with what you say.

I noticed you made no comment for the SECOND time about “perfect tense”. Let me repeat what I have said before – twice – without comment from you…
>>>The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.<<<
This isn’t something that is going to happen – it is something “completed in the past”! Now if you still don’t understand – just ask and I will “learn” you again. But acknowledge the point as I will not allow you to ignore it !

I have no disagreement with that. The problem you're having is that you refuse to hear the fact that the action that has happened is that the new covenant has been established, NOT obtained, (activated, attained) like the ministry of Christ.
- - -
Exegesis of Hebrews 8:

Ddub, WHERE is YOUR exegesis??? I gave mine – so now would be a great time for me to see YOURS. Do you have one? It is easy enough to snipe at someone else’s work. What have YOU got to offer?

I thought I was offering my exegesis the whole time. What specific verse would you like?
Ddub - The law IS NOT the Old Covenant, and Gal. 3:17 makes that fact very clear.

“The law” IS a part of the OLD covenant – as established quite clearly here in Hebrews 8. The writer speaks of the Levitical priesthood, of Moses, and the gives the prophecy of Jeremiah speaking to Israel in context with the covenant. The law of verse 8:4 is the “first” covenant of verse 7,...

So please explain what the fault is with this covenant. See, you have a problem because the Bible says that the law in and of itself is faultless. So where is the fault? Here's some exegesis for you. The fault is in the very part that you omit. The law was "added" to the Abrahamic Covenant. The effect was that it made the grace of the AC unattainable because no one could overcome the law. Christ came with a "more excellent ministry", and overcame the law, removing it from the Abrahamic Covenant, allowing grace to abound through this covenant to all nations just as was promised.
Since you disagree with that, please explain what the fault is, and how it pertains to the verse.

... and is the “old” covenant of verse 13.

This cannot be correct because Jesus said that heaven and earth shall pass, and the law would still be here. So how could the law be "waxed old and vanishing away"? Not possible. Also, the law is at the center of the New Covenant! How could it possibly be vanishing away??? That simply doesn't make sense. Therefore, you're incorrect.

Galatians 3:17 NEVER uses the word “old”. It never uses the word “old” in reference to any covenant, but Heb 8:13 does – which is context clear that the law given at Sinai is the OLD covenant.

But you've already argued that the law is a PART of the Old Covenant. So which is it? And remember that the law isn't going anywhere according to the Lord Jesus Christ.

You want to say that because the covenant made with Abraham is older than the covenant made at Sinai, that the covenant with Abraham is the old covenant. SORRY – scripture does not use the word old is that manner. Please use Bible words in Bible ways !!!

Truly the pot calling the kettle black. Then how can you possibly say we're under the NC when the Bible never says so? I guess you have to stick to the principles theology UNTIL they don't stick to you anymore. Then fall back on whatever supports you, eh?
But more importantly, how could Christ have already moved the law out of the way, yet it is waxing old and vanishing away AFTER He has removed it? Could you please explain? Your logic and train of thought here are falling waaaaaay short. Are you saying that the law is in the way, even though grace has abounded? Your theology isn't adding up!
Last, you have totally contradicted yourself. First you say the law was a part of the OC, and now you argue that "old" was never used in Gal 3:17. How could that be true if the law is the "old"? You just validated that the Abrahamic Covenant is the Old Covenant.
Ddub - Errr... please don't add to the words of the Bible [verse 9].

Wah!I am giving an EXEGESIS ! I am explaining to you what I think the verse means – pay attention. And even at that – I accurately relayed what the passage already says. WHERE is YOUR exegesis ?
Ddub - Again you're confusing the law with the Old Covenant…
You have your definitions wrong and/or you are making a division where one does not exist. The word “OLD” can not be found in Gal 3. “Please don’t add words to the scriptures”… which you have done here and continue to do in Galatians 3.

If the Old Covenant isn't in Gal 3, then clearly the law isn't the Old Covenant. But I guess the law is only the OC when it's convenient for you. And when that doesn't work for you, then it's simply a PART of the OC. Look... at this point why don't you just tell us what the OC is? Is it the law, is it not the law, or is it partly the law? What says your theology?

First you force the word “old” into Galatians 3:17 – and then you want to force that misplaced assumption into the context of Hebrews 8 - LOL. I would call this “hermeNUTics"! My exegesis of Hebrews 8, the context there, and the words found therein, is accurate !

If what you say is so accurate, how is it that the law is the "old" in your theology, and the law is in Gal 3:17? Once again you contradict yourself. And how is the law all over Hbr 8, and not to be considered the "old" by you? You'll have to re-exegete, and find a stronger hermeneutical position.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - Hbr 9:15 says the blood of Christ is for the sins of the Old Covenant. Could you please explain?

Yes I can – you need it desperately…
Your first problem was not reading the verse correctly, and then repeating/paraphrasing the verse incorrectly. The verse reads…
Hebrews 9:15 - And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. ASV
The verse says that the DEATH of Christ was for the redemption of the “transgressions” under the OLD covenant – NOT that His blood ratified the OLD covenant or that He mediated the OLD.

So... the DEATH of Christ is for the sins of the OC, but the BLOOD is not. Is that what you're saying? That's your theology??? Hmmm...

More on this below.

Yes, as you desperately need more...

I am not surprised you have not paid attention to the stark contrast that is made in Hebrews 8-10 between the NEW and Old covenant and the difference in the blood that ratified each covenant. Christ became a priest and entered into the holy place in the perfect tabernacle (heaven), and there with His own blood obtained eternal redemption – for the faithful of all times (Heb. 9:11-15)!

Did He obtain redemption for the sins of the Old Covenant, where there were sins, or for the New Covenant, where there were yet NO SINS???

Verse 15 – “And for this cause…”(Christ’s sacrifice being better than the Levitical sacrifices – see the previous 4 verses), “He is the mediator of a NEW covenant…”! Christ being a priest, His offering of sacrifice, and His obtaining of eternal redemption in this fashion was not possible under the OLD – so there had to be a New covenant within which Christ could do this!

So the grace promised in the Abrahamic Covenant to all nations wasn't possible? Did God lie? Why did God promise this if it's not possible? What did He mean? And why did Paul lie in Gal 3 by telling us we were justified through this promise? If what you say is true, you'll have no problem explaining BIBLICALLY.

Christ mediates a NEW covenant ! IF Christ is not mediating NOW, there is no redemption now !

Christ is also mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant.

“…A death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first [old] covenant…” The death (ei. blood) of Christ...

So HERE, death = blood. Yet earlier, death did not equal blood. Hmmm...

... The death (ei. blood) of Christ also obtained redemption for those reckoned “righteous” that lived under the first (Old) covenant. These sins God “passed over” knowing that the day would come when the blood of Christ would redeem these as well. Cf. Romans 3:25.

So the blood of Christ was for the Old Covenant. Hmmm... So... the blood of Christ was for those under THE LAW???!!!??? I didn't know you could be saved under the law! Continue...

“…they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”
The “called” receive the redemption promised via the blood of Christ.

So the blood is for the sins of those under the Old Covenant, correct?

Christians are “called” by the Gospel – cf. 2 Ths 2:14. The promise of redemption came through a covenant God made with Abraham. The reality of redemption comes through a covenant mediated with Christ.

So are you saying that the PROMISE of redemption came through the Abrahamic Covenant, but that promise was never fulfilled. God, then, did not fulfill His promise?

(More about this below.)

Good, because more is desperately needed! This is only digging a deeper and deeper and deeper hole for you.

To be continued...

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos (cont...)

Verse 18 continues telling us how the first/old covenant was also ratified by blood - the blood of calves and goats – the mediator being Moses! This first/OLD covenant was not ratified or mediated by Christ!

That would be the law. Now what about the Abrahamic Covenant, the covenant that the redemption of sins came under? Whose blood ratified THIS covenant? The one you said "The death (ei. blood) of Christ also obtained redemption for"... whose blood ratified THIS covenant???
Ddub - This verse [verse 13] may be the most telling. Did the writer say "is growing old", or "has died"?

The writer states the OLD was passing away. WHY did the writer say the Old was decaying (old and so about to be abrogated – Thayer), vanishing, waxing old? This is the more important question. The writer already said the New covenant is “enacted” (made into law) and the Old was “vanishing away” (disappearing), this, as more people were converted to Christ out of Judaism.

So are you saying that the old will vanish when there's no more Judaism? So you're saying it's still waxing old and vanishing away at this very moment?

It is an easy concept for those that know the truth and those that can read.

Or those willing to believe something that isn't true and they have no chance of explaining, apparently.

If the Old was not passing away, then what was it doing according to this verse?

The old was passing way, but the law wasn't going anywhere according to the Bible.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - No, I'm saying that there is no need to be any kind of Israel to be saved, as God is no respector of persons…

But isn’t the New covenant, according to you, only for the Jews? God MUST be a respecter of persons according to you.

Why, because God made a promise to them that didn't include you? You're not under the law, the law wasn't given to you, so you have no need obviously for it to be place in your heart and mind. Why does that bother you?
…God saves Gentiles just like He saves Jews, and therefore we don't have to become Israel of any kind, physical or spiritual, to be saved. If you disagree in any way, please explain.

I am not certain you believe this. If you believe the New covenant is only for the Jews, then Jews are not saved “just like” the Gentiles - the blood of Christ notwithstanding.

The New Covenant has the law at it's center. Gentiles do not have the law, Jews do. Therefore, Gentiles have no need of being saved within a covenant that contains the law.

I believe all of the saved in Christ today are “spiritual Israel” – “Israel” metaphorically meaning the “people” of God and nothing more. These saved people are the ones that have received “circumcision of the heart” and are a “Jew inwardly”, regardless of their nationality.

There is NOTHING in the Bible that ever says Gentiles become Jews when they're saved. Gentiles do not become "spiritual Israel", or any other kind of Israel. That is man-made garble that doesn't have a shred of truth in it. The Bible says that Gentiles are included in Christ. Gentiles AS Gentiles, NOT Gentiles that have to become some form of Jew. That is a lie being spread directly from the bowels of Hades. There is no biblical basis for it other than "inference", and on an issue of this magnitude, God would not leave us to "infer" we were Jews. Yet, that's what you believe.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - By spoon-feed, do you mean the Bible actually saying it, rather than you "inferring"?

Of course! And inference is valid. YOU attempt to use it (although with an invalid application) to make the INFERENCE that Jonah’s fate was different that those in Nineveh. I can see that inference usage for you is acceptable, but for anyone else it is prohibited.

Inference is INVALID when there is are solid biblical statements that contradict what you infer. For instance, if you're inferring that Gentiles become Jews when saved, and the Bible says that there are saved Gentiles, then your inference immediately becomes invalid.
In the case of Jonah, it's very clear that he was sent to "minister" to the people of Nineveh regarding THEIR fate, which didn't include himself. You seem to be challenging this fact by citing that we're all to pay for our sins. That is a ratherk weak reply to the fact I lay before you. Am I seeing this correctly? Is that it?
- - - - -
Continued below...

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos
(continued...)
Ddub - Here [Gal 4:28] you have Paul himself declaring that he's under the same covenant as Isaac, and YOU have the audacity to say that this isn't what he means!

Your indignation is misplaced – save it ! And now, follow the context here within the allegory.

-In my last post I said the “promise” mentioned here is the promise of inheritance (salvation) through Jesus Christ. That’s not right.
-What you said above, that’s not right. Paul’s point has nothing to do with being under a covenant.
Paul is very clear in stating that we, like Isaac, are children of the promise to Abraham. Do you think he's speaking of some other promise? If so, explain clearly.

Following the allegory, we must recognize that Isaac was promised to Abraham when Abraham had no heir – see Genesis 15 – see verse 4 specifically. Paul’s point in the context of the allegory is that just as Isaac was a child of promise to Abraham, Christians (as the “spiritual” children of Abraham – see Gal 3:7,16,18, & 29) are children of “promise” to Abraham – see Genesis 12 – verse 2 specifically.
“Now we (Christians), brethren, as Isaac was (as promised to Abraham), are the children of promise (as promised to Abraham).” All of this being within the context of the allegory !

You're attempting to skip the entire point. I'm not arguing with you about anything you said here. As you state, we are all children of the promise, Isaac included. The only question is, what promise are we all children of??? The Bible says we're all children of the Abrahamic promise. That's what Paul is saying here. YOU, on the other hand, seem to be saying we're children of the New Covenant, which would be in disagreement with Paul. However, I don't want to speak for you. So... according to your theology, are we children of the Abrahamic promise like Isaac, or are we children of the New Covenant?
- - - - - - - - -
Ddub - Paul "ministered" the NC, he was not under it.

Your misconception of his “ministry” leads me to ask you –

Wait a sec, if it's a misconception, where's your scriptural proof? I said Paul is a minister of the NC because Paul said he was. Paul clearly says this. So since you accuse me of misconception here, where's your biblical proof? Either you produce it, or you're wrongfully accusing me.

Where and How did Paul “minister” this covenant???

Why would I need to show that? Paul said he was a minister of the NC. You don't take him at his word? Why would I need to prove that he actually ministered the NC if he said that he did?

You say Paul was not accountable to the New covenant or any of it tenets (that is what you are saying), so when/where/how did Paul minister to it without being under it??? Point that out for me.

Take note of the above answer. That's not my responsibility to you. If you want to call Paul a liar, then just do so. But don't involve me in it. I showed you where Paul said he's a minister of the NC. If you doubt that, then take it up with Paul and the Holy Spirit.

What you will find (if you answer this question at all) is that Paul’s writings, travel, and preaching all show he was under and ministered to the NEW covenant – aka the New Testament.

If that were the case, this discussion would have ended long ago. As a matter of fact, it never would've begun. Here's the proof- list the scripture(s) where Paul states he's under the New Covenant. I'll bet that there will be NONE. Let's see.
Oh, and please don't dwell on the "new testament" statement as that is a man-made division of God's word.
Ddub - Are you now telling me that the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant?

No – I am not saying this. Abraham (a man) made a covenant with God. Promises were made to Abraham under this covenant.

When were they fulfilled? Or are you saying that God made promisese that he couldn't keep?

Later, Israel (a nation) made a covenant (the “Old”) with God at Sinai.

You've been shown this before, yet you choose to ignore it. Let's look at how the Bible contradicts what you're saying;
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.
Paul here SEPARATES the law from the promise ot Abraham, declaring that the law IS NOT the Old Covenant promise.
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.
Paul then makes it clear that the law was an addition to the promise(covenant) to Abraham because of sin, thereby preventing it's fulfillment until the mediator of that covenant(promise) to Abraham showed up to remove the law from the covenant.

Promises were made to this nation under this covenant.
Today, all nations can make a covenant (the “New”) with God through Christ.

According to whom? The Bible says no such thing. According to the Bible, all nations are included in the Abrahamic Covenant. Only Israel is included in the New Covenant. That's why when you make a wild, untrue statement like this, you support it with no Bible. Why? Because it's not supported by the Bible. So who is the author of this statement?
**

Promises are made to all nations under this covenant. I am not accountable to either of the first two – I never have been. Christ – not Abraham or Moses – is the mediator between God and man.

Read Gal 3:19 AGAIN. Who do you think is the mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant being spoken of here in this verse? Do you think it's Moses or Abraham? Right here in this verse you are being told that the mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant is Jesus Christ. So please, read it AGAIN.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - Why would we not drink the blood?

BECAUSE it is the cup of the NEW covenant! – 1 Cor. 11:25 / Luke 22:20 WHY would Gentiles partake in the cup of the NEW covenant? YOU say the NEW covenant is NOT for the Gentiles! This is the question you need to answer. Can you explain why Gentiles drink the cup?

Because the BLOOD is for all. The blood covers the sins of the Abrahamic Covenant that were committed, which includes Gentiles. Without the blood, under ANY covenant, you're not saved. The blood is for Gentiles and the Abrahamic Covenant as well as the New Covenant, as Christ isn't a mediator of just one.
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Ddub - The blood is for all under Christ.

True – so this MUST means ALL are under the NEW covenant! Why? Because the cup is the NEW covenant in His blood – 1 Cor. 11:25.
These instructions were given to both Jew and Gentile at Corinth. (Your theology just went down in flames !)

What is going down in flames is your faulty logic. The blood is for all under Christ, both Jew and Gentile. You are preaching a view in which the blood is only for Jews, and then you have to make all Gentiles into "spiritual Jews", and NONE of this is what the Bible preaches. Don't let your faulty logic take you down in flames. Just accept what the Bible actually says.
Ddub - Christ is not the mediator of one covenant according to the Bible.

You won’t find any scriptural support for this. Please list the verses you think says Christ mediated more than ONE covenant so I can correct you. I answered Heb 9:15 above.

Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
Notice Paul makes this statement right after he made it clear that the promise to Abraham wasn't the law, and that the promise Christ was to be mediator to was the Abrahamic promise, as this is the promise he's speaking of here. Then he makes it clear in v. 20 that this, the Abrahamic promise, isn't the only promise that Christ is mediator of.
You may not have been able to find it, but it has always been right in front of your face.

Animal blood ratified the covenant God made with Abraham – see Genesis 15.

Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
So... the "burning lamp that passed between those pieces"... is an animal? Are you sure? I vehemently disagree, as does Gal 3:17, which declares that Christ ratified the covenant.

Animal blood ratified the covenant God made with Israel –see Hebrews 9:18-20.

Animal blood ratified the LAW according to this verse, NOT the Abrahamic Covenant. You need to read the verses you list again.

See also Exodus 24 – specifically verse 8.

Again, this is specifically speaking of Moses and the law, NOT the Abrahamic Covenant.
- - - - - - - - -
Apollos asked last post –
Why would Christ tell the Corinthians to “commune” if Christ were not going to “commune” with them?? (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16).
What was the purpose (in your view) of the Lord’s supper for the Corinthians?
Especially – tell us the purpose for the Gentiles to do this !
Ddub replied - Because the Corinthians were in Christ as well, and His blood saves them as well!

This is just another one of your half-answers. Follow me here if you can…
Christ’s blood is the blood of the NEW covenant – 1Cor 11:15.

Christ' blood is also the blood of the Abrahamic Covenant, as Gal 3:20 tells us it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. The Abrahamic Covenant was established by Christ (Gen 15,Gal 3:17), and activated by the blood of Christ (Gal 3:20).

Christians “commune” through the cup of the New covenant - 1 Cor. 10:16.
If the New covenant has not been “activated”…
HOW are Christians “communing” with each other???
Why would Christ tell them to “This do…” when Christ isn’t “communing” ? – 1 Cor 11:25.

Christians commune through the BLOOD. The blood is for both covenants. The Abrahamic Covenant, the covenant of grace, applies to both Jew and Gentile. It is for all. Therefore, the blood is for all. But Paul tells us why in the next verse;
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
We show the Lord's death til He comes, as we are saved by His blood. But you claimed there was a Lord's supper for the Corinthians. What are you talking about? And when Christ made the statement, what Gentiles were present?

Your theology has destroyed the communion of the Lord !!! How tragic !!!

No, it has exposed your erroneous belief, and displayed how it works in harmony with the Bible.

To be continued...

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos (cont...)

Ddub - My Bible, in both Jeremiah and Hebrews, says the New Covenant is for the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Why do you ADD that word “ONLY” into Heb 8:8 ? Does it read that God would make a new covenant with Israel & Judah… ONLY? Why forget to whom Jeremiah was talking to? Why so presumptuous? And then look at verse 10.

Haha! I added nothing. The Bible mentions Israel & Judah ONLY in the verse! I'm sure if God wanted to include anyone else, then He would've done so.

It states here (vs. 10) that the New covenant is “for” the house (family) of Israel (God’s people – cf. Gal. 6:16). You have already agreed that we are the “seed” of Abraham and the sons of Abraham by faith in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:7,29). Why are Christians not the “Israel” of God today?

Because Gentiles are not "Israel", and the Bible never says such a thing, not anywhere. So why would you? Gal 6:16 simply declares peace unto all walking with Christ, including Israel.
As far as being the seed of Abraham, that seed includes both Jew and Gentile. You need not be a Jew to be in the seed of Abraham, you only need to be in Christ.
So Christians have no need to be Israel, we only have a need to be in Christ. He accepts us as Gentiles. In your belief, one must be/become Israel in order to be in Christ. That isn't what the Bible teaches.

Ddub - Wait a minute... didn't you just say that the Abrahamic Covenant was for ALL nations?

No – I did not. You read your errant theology into my remarks as you do into scripture.

Quote: "The promise [Gal. 4:28] that came through Abraham was for ALL nations to be blessed through his seed – which was Christ."
-Apollos
But you say I'm reading errant theology into your remarks. Wow!
**

The covenant that was made with Abraham only provided a promise to Abraham for all nations to be blessed – through his seed. This promise was not made with ALL nations – it was made with Abraham – duh!

You're not serious, are you?

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.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
It says right here that the promise is a part of the covenant made with Abraham. The promise that all nations are to be blessed is INCLUDED in the Abrhamic Covenant.
And to make matters worse for you, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that this promise is a part of the New Covenant! Wow!

Christ has made it possible for all nations to be blessed through the New covenant that His blood made possible. When Christ shed His blood and the New covenant became a reality, the promise/covenant with Abraham to bless all nations through Abraham’s seed was fulfilled.

Huh? OK, fine. What scripture says such a thing? Where is that in the Bible? NOWHERE. You made that up.
1) Christ blessed all nations through the New Covenant.
2) The New Covenant became a reality (as in being an active covenant we're under).
3) When the NC became a reality, the covenant with Abraham was fulfilled.
I'm challenging you to show me that in the Bible. Otherwise, it's quite evident that you made it up.

Summation of YOUR claims:
-Christ is the mediator a covenant that is not in effect.
(Christ could NOT be a priest, offer sacrifices, or obtain redemption under any other covenant than the NEW – thus He “enacted” a NEW covenant.)

You're wrong, and here's the biblical proof;
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance (REDEMPTION) [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise (ABRAHAMIC COVENANT).
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed (CHRIST) should come to whom the promise (ABRAHAMIC COVENANT) was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (CHRIST).
So here we have Christ as the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant, a covenant other than the new, with this Abrahamic Covenant obtaining salvation through the sacrifice of Christ, the High Priest.
You're wrong on EVERY account.

-Christ enacted a covenant that is not in effect.
(If the NEW covenant is not in effect – there is no redemption at this present time.)

Redemption for all nations was promised through the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3:8), and NO OTHER COVENANT. You've yet to show one verse in which it states that salvation comes to all nations through the New Covenant. Yet, you continue to perpetrate this untruth.

-Christ told Jew and Gentile to partake of the cup of the new covenant that is not in effect.
(For some reason you say Christ told them to drink it with no real purpose in mind – a kind of “Just do it.” thinking that you have applied to the communion of the Lord.)

Wrong again. Paul makes it quite clear as to why Gentiles should drink it;
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
We show the Lord's death til He comes, as we are saved by His blood.

-Christ told Jew and Gentile to have communion, but He is not partaking with them.
(Your misunderstanding of the “kingdom” and New Covenant has Christ sitting idle in communion and in the redemption of man.)

Paul tells you plainly that the redemption of man is handled under the Abrahamic Covenant, but you prefer to not address it, and pretend like it's never stated (Gal 3:8). And it's Christ who stated that He wouldn't drink it new with them until that day. I didn't say it, Christ said it. Take it up with Him.

-Christ told Gentiles to commune as part of a covenant that they have no part in.
(You say the blood of the New covenant is to “save them” but no one seems to understand HOW – because Gentiles aren’t a part of the New covenant according to you. How then can Gentiles partake of the “blood of the new covenant”.) ((ROMANS 11:25))

Paul tells you why Gentiles are to participate (1Cr 11:25). I believe that's the verse you were referring to, not Ro. 11:25. And the blood is the blood for both covenants, as Christ is the Mediator of both covenants, as Gal 3:17-20 explains to you.

-Paul and others were enabled by God to be ministers of a covenant that is not in effect.
(You say Paul and others “ministered” FOR (but not under) the NEW covenant, but you can’t show where/ how/ or when anyone did such a thing.

You've been shown clearly, but you can't accept it because it's too big of a blow to your theology. You can't mentally swallow the truth apparently. Jonah is a clear example of someone ministering without being under what he ministered. (Wow!)
>

The covenant with Abraham went into effect when ratified by animal blood in Genesis 15.

The Covenant wasn't ratified with animal blood, it was ratified by Christ according to Gen 15, and CONFIRMED by Gal 3:17. Read more Bible! (lol)

>The OLD covenant went into effect at Sinai when ratified by the blood of animals in Exodus 24.

Sigh. Gal 3:17 tells us that the law you're speaking of isn't the Old Covenant that brings salvation, that it is indeed the Abrahamic Covenant that does this. It tells us that the law was added to the Abrahamic Covenant 430 years later.
The strange thing is that you apparently know this because you say the Abrahamic Covenant was ratified in Gen 15, and the law was ratified 430 yrs. later at Sinai with Moses! You're speaking in circles!

>Christ shed His blood of the NEW covenant at Calvary.

Sigh. As the Bible states, Christ is not the mediator of one, as His blood was also shed for the Abrahamic Covenant, as He is also mediator of that covenant (Gal 3:19), and He ratified that covenant (Gal 3:17).
Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;
He died once for MANY. He died for Isaac, and Isaac isn't under the New Covenant, he's under the covenant of his father, Abraham, as are you and I according to the Bible.

(Hmmm, I wonder… when did the NEW covenant go into effect? Hmmm… )

The Bible never says it went into effect. That's one of the many problems with your theology.

I am hopeful that this post helps to shed an abundance of light upon the wreckless theology that you hold so dear.

This post of yours has been taken apart line upon line, precept upon precept by scripture. Each point you've made has been exposed as untrue by scripture.

I will add that you may want to think about writing your summation to this thread. You and I have “whipped” it about as far as I think it can go.

This is usually what happens when someone finds out that they can no longer defend their position with scripture, that they are in fact relying upon their own thoughts and words to defend their position.

Some unanswered questions you left on the table;
*This verse(Hbr 8:13) may be the most telling. Did the writer say "is growing old", or "has died"? The former means it's still there, and the latter means it is gone. The writer uses the former, meaning it's still here, yet you use the latter, meaning it's gone. One of you is WRONG. You say "almost gone", and then argue that it's actually gone and replaced by the new! You're contradicting yourself here. Could you please explain?

*Amen! No one today need be concerned whether they are Jew or Gentile, as BOTH can have an eternal destiny with God. Do you agree? Or do you believe that one must be Israel in order to be saved?

*I'm saying that there is no need to be any kind of Israel to be saved, as God is no respector of persons, and loves us all whether Jew or Gentile. God saves Gentiles just like He saves Jews, and therefore we don't have to become Israel of any kind, physical or spiritual, to be saved. If you disagree in any way, please explain.

*Here you have Paul himself declaring that he's under the same covenant as Isaac, and YOU have the audacity to say that this isn't what he means! And there is simply no arguing what covenant Issaac was under. He was under teh covenant given to his father. Or maybe you would be foolish enough to make that argument. I don't want to speak for you.

*Are you now telling me that the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant? Please explain and be very clear and thorough.

*The Bible claims Christ isn't the mediator of only one covenant. Do you disagree? And are you one who believes that all covenants are in effect at the same time?

*When was the Abrahamic Covenant activated?

*So is this (Pentecost) your date for the beginning of the New Covenant?

I'd love to hear your answers to these previously asked questions.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub said - This is usually what happens when someone finds out that they can no longer defend their position with scripture, that they are in fact relying upon their own thoughts and words to defend their position.

Nope, if I could not defend my position I would say&#8230; &#8220;I guess that is between you and God.&#8221; Now where have we heard that before? LOL !

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

Nope!

You'd at least answer those questions you left on the table!

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub -

Answer your questions? I have. For example, the very first question you (repeated) in asking in post #65 above was...

Ddub asked - *This verse(Hbr 8:13) may be the most telling.
Did the writer say "is growing old", or "has died"?

Now go to my post #60 above.
Go down the quotes I have listed for you - that would be under "Ddub...". Find the 8th one.
There you will find this same question AND the answer I provided.


I have answered ALL of your questions - you just aren't paying any attention.
How many time and in how many ways can I show you that your theology is wrong?

I can say I am quite happy with my particiaption in our discussion. You
do not appear to be as happy. I can understand why, but I will not be
able to give you closure.

Best of luck...