Israel?

[GLJCA]

I said, Even the scripture that you presented in Heb 9:15 speaks against you.

You answered, In what way? It says that the forgiveness of sins were under the Old
Covenant. That is exactly what I'm saying. So how could it possibly speak against me? Since you disagree with that, it speaks against you , not me.

Because you are only centering on part of the verse and missing the end of the verse.
Heb 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.
The calling of God is not limited to the Old Testament or at least you better hope not.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Is Paul only speaking about OT called ones?

2Co 3:6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Paul told the Corinthian Gentile Christians that they were ministers of the New Testament.

Face it DDUB the Bible does not back you up. You are standing false teaching and what is worst is that you are spreading it to others, which is very dangerous.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

I presented, Heb 8:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Let's insert the words of the definition into this verse unlike what you did.
For a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testor liveth. I am stating the same thing that the Bible is stating my brother. I am saying that the New Testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after the
testor, Christ, died. Your supposed difference in the definition does not have a leg to stand on.

Your answer,
I have no supposed difference with what you just said. I agree with what you just said. It's only when you attempt to say the testament has begun, that it has been obtained, which the Bible DOES NOT say, that I
object.

The definition that you had no trouble with shows that the testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty and comes into strength after the death of the testor.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
This is what I can't get over. Did Jesus Christ die?
Then the New Testament is in strength, of force and being applied to the Church of Jesus Christ.

You have still never shown me a scripture plainly saying that we are not the Covenant people of God today.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

If Paul was telling the Galatians that they only inherit one promise that God gave Abraham and Christ, which was salvation by faith, then poor Isaac will only inherit that one promise also.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
I doubt that this verse will change your mind but I can only hope that you will see that your belief is in error.


You answered,
Not so. Isaac was a part of the promises given to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3. We Gentiles were given the single promise, which is in Gen12:3. In other words, we all, Jew and Gentile, receive the promise of salvation. So we, as Isaac was, are the children of that promise, which Paul pulled out amongst the promises made. But the others are to the Jews, and therefore Isaac partakes of those.
However, whether Isaac partakes of those or not, it doesn't change the fact that we, as Isaac was, are children of the Old Covenant promise of salvation written in Gen 12:3. There is no error.

Paul did not say that we are children of THAT promise. He said that God shows no difference between the Jew and the Gentile. God does not give something to the Jew that the Gentile can not receive or else the Word of God is lying to us.
Ac 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Ro 10:12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
We are either one in Christ or one in a lost condition.
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

I do realize the reason you are fighting so hard to prove this wrong. Dispensationalism stands or falls on this belief. If the New Covenant is in effect and we, the Church of Jesus Christ, inherit the promises of the New Covenant then Dispensationalism can't stand. It is shown to be false teaching. I have to say that if you have to take scripture out of context and twist and turn the scriptures to prove your belief then it should give you pause.

Gotta go to my tee time. There are other important things besides debating the scriptures, you know. Golf is not a matter of life and death, it is more important than that.


GLJCA

 

[holdon]

No, the promise was to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ (Gal 3:16). We who believe are joint-heirs with Christ in those promises.(Rom 8:17) The promises of God are applied to Gentiles by virtue of their relationship with Christ.

If you're under the New Covenant you should be living in Israel and the time of Jacob's trouble is behind you, etc... How's your Hebrew?

There is no such things as a physical heir to the promises of God.

Though there were of you driven out unto the end of the heavens, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee; 30:5 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land that thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. 30:6 And Jehovah thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. 30:7 And Jehovah thy God will put all these curses on thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, who have persecuted thee. 30:8 But thou shalt return and hearken to the voice of Jehovah, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day. I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you: life and death have I set before you, blessing and cursing: choose then life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed, 30:20 in loving Jehovah thy God, in hearkening to his voice, and in cleaving to him -- for this is thy life and the length of thy days -- that thou mayest dwell in the land which Jehovah swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

DDUB you must not be reading the scriptures that I am presenting. I guess if you don't read them you can keep maintaining that I am not presenting them.

GLJCA,
After you present them, if you don't defend them, what good is it? For instance, if you say water is wet, and I say it's dry, then you pour it on me and I'm all wet, I can no longer contend that it's dry.

Quote:
I said, You can not give me one scripture because there isn't one. There is no reference giving Gentiles salvation except in the New Covenant blood of Christ.
You answered, I just did. But notice that you don't have one scripture which says salvation came to Gentiles through the New Covenant. You don't even have one scripture which says the New Covenant is for Gentiles. You don't even have one scripture that says Gentiles become Israel when saved. You don't even have one scripture which says the New Covenant has begun. Need I continue?

No the scripture you gave does not say what you are trying to maintain. There is no scripture that gives Gentiles salvation in the Old Covenant.

This would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

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.

Are you somehow arguing that justification through faith isn't salvation? Are you kiddin' me?
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

This scripture that Paul quotes (Gal 3:8) is from the Old Testament. Paul says this scripture justifies Gentiles, bringing salvation to Gentiles. Are you denying this? If so, please "justify" what you're saying.

All you can refer to in Gal 3 which doesn't say that at all. Don't you find it amazing that there is no other reference that backs what you say that Gal 3 is talking about? Dispys are notorious for taking scripture out of context as a proof text.

Rom 4:13 ¶ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Listen, how many scriptures would you like? It's written, line upon line, precept upon precept. Here a little, there a little. But what YOU are saying, that we are saved under the New Covenant, is written NOWHERE in the Bible.

I have also given you several scriptures showing conclusively that the Gentiles have salvation because of the New Covenant body and blood of Christ.

WHERE? I haven't seen one that says such a thing.

Here is one that I have shared several times but you have never commented on why Paul wrote this to Gentiles.
1Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Paul was writing to Gentiles telling them that Christ's body and Christ's blood was the New Testament given for them. How plain do you need it?

You are misquoting the scripture! "This cup is the new testament in my blood." Does this say Christ gave them the New Covenant? NO! "This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." Doe this say anyone is under the New Covenant? NO! But that is what YOU are saying.

Also, does Christ say this is my blood for the New Covenant ONLY? Do you believe Christ died for the sins of the Old Covenant? Yes or no?

Isn't it interesting that these Gentiles could be guilty of the body and the New Covenant blood of the Lord yet they can not be a part of the New Covenant? What a silly thought!
1Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Are they guilty of disobeying a commandment, or of something else? If it's something else, what is it?

Paul told the Corinthian Gentile Christians that they were ministers of the New Testament.
2Co 3:6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Really how could they be ministers of something that they are not part of?

Then tell me, why didn't Paul tell them they were a part of it? Why doesn't Paul (or anyone else, for that matter) say that ANYWHERE in the Bible? It is written NOWHERE in the Bible. It is assumed by you.

Now, what is a minister? A servant, as in a waiter in a restaurant. Tell me, is the meal for the waiter? Yes or no. Enough said. Paul NEVER says the New Covenant is for Gentiles.

How many scriptures do you need?

At least one. So far, you are at 0.

I have more. Of Course, I have already given you much more than you have presented yet you keep saying that I don't give you scripture.

You haven't presented one scripture which says Gentiles are under the
New Covenant. Not one. Think about that FACT. "Water isn't dry."

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@GLJCA

Quote:
I said, Even the scripture that you presented in Heb 9:15 speaks against you.
You answered, In what way? It says that the forgiveness of sins were under the Old Covenant. That is exactly what I'm saying. So how could it possibly speak against me? Since you disagree with that, it speaks against you , not me.

Because you are only centering on part of the verse and missing the end of the verse.
Heb 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.

Then by all means, let's focus on the end of the verse. "They which are CALLED (past tense) HAVE RECEIVED (past tense) the promise of eternal inheritance." Is that right? Oh,... it doesn't say "HAVE RECEIVED", past tense. It says "MIGHT RECEIVE", as in future tense, as
it contrasts "CALLED", which is clearly past tense.
So Christ is saying that the called, with the redemption of sins under the Old Covenant, MIGHT RECEIVE what is yet to come, the promise of eternal inheritance. By all means, let's discuss it.

The calling of God is not limited to the Old Testament or at least you better hope not.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Is Paul only speaking about OT called ones?

What makes you think that He's not? Just because there's New Testament scriptures doesn't mean we're under the New Covenant. You do know that, don't you?

2Co 3:6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Paul told the Corinthian Gentile Christians that they were ministers of the New Testament.

Again, is the meal for the waiter or the dinner guest? If you're the waiter, then why are you claiming the meal? Be careful, the chef may fire you.

Face it DDUB the Bible does not back you up. You are standing false teaching and what is worst is that you are spreading it to others, which is very dangerous.

Then by all means, expose the untruth and I will accept the truth. So far, you can't only prove your belief, but you are unable to defend it, and it is being exposed as untrue.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

Quote:
I presented, Heb 8:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Let's insert the words of the definition into this verse unlike what you did.
For a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testor liveth. I am stating the same thing that the Bible is stating my brother. I am saying that the New Testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after the
testor, Christ, died. Your supposed difference in the definition does not have a leg to stand on.
Your answer,
I have no supposed difference with what you just said. I agree with what you just said. It's only when you attempt to say the testament has begun, that it has been obtained, which the Bible DOES NOT say, that I object.

The definition that you had no trouble with shows that the testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty and comes into strength after the death of the testor.

"Comes into strength"??? That's not a part of the definition. You made that up yourself. See what happens when you believe a lie? You have to make things up as you go to defend the untruth. "Comes into
strength" isn't in the definition. Try again.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
This is what I can't get over. Did Jesus Christ die?
Then the New Testament is in strength, of force and being applied to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Answer these few questions for me.
1. WHO is the testator of the Old Covenant? It says "after MEN are
dead. WHAT MAN died for the Old Covenant?
2. If the Old Covenant justifies, WHO besides Jesus Christ can be the
testator?
3. What is the difference between the two; Old Covenant and New
Covenant?
I look forward to your answers to these questions.

You have still never shown me a scripture plainly saying that we are not the Covenant people of God today.

When did I ever say we weren't the covenant people of God? We are the covenant people of God, but were NOT the New Covenant people of God. I have shown you scripture which plainly says we're the Old Covenant
people of God (Gal 3:8, Rom 4:13, Acts 3:25, Gal 4:28). You haven't shown me a scripture plainly saying that we are the New Covenant people of God.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

Quote:
If Paul was telling the Galatians that they only inherit one promise that God gave Abraham and Christ, which was salvation by faith, then poor Isaac will only inherit that one promise also. Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.I doubt that this verse will change your mind but I can only hope that
you will see that your belief is in error.
You answered,
Not so. Isaac was a part of the promises given to Abraham in Gen 12:1-3. We Gentiles were given the single promise, which is in Gen12:3. In other words, we all, Jew and Gentile, receive the promise of
salvation. So we, as Isaac was, are the children of that promise, which Paul pulled out amongst the promises made. But the others are to the
Jews, and therefore Isaac partakes of those.
However, whether Isaac partakes of those or not, it doesn't change the fact that we, as Isaac was, are children of the Old Covenant promise of
salvation written in Gen 12:3. There is no error.

Paul did not say that we are children of THAT promise.

Paul said promise (singular). Paul pulled ONE promise out of the many in the same scripture, and gave it to Gentiles. Paul said we would receive what we've been allotted, and NO ONE has presented any other
promises to Gentiles in the Bible.

He said that God shows no difference between the Jew and the Gentile.

"ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE". I pointed that out clearly to you, and you have totally ignored it. Why?

God does not give something to the Jew that the Gentile can not receive or else the Word of God is lying to us.
Ac 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

He's speaking about the reception of the Holy Ghost;
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;
He's in no way speaking about all that is given. YOU have added that, thereby creating your own gospel. Receiving the Holy Spirit is a part of the single promise of salvation.

Ro 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

This is speaking of JUSTIFICATION THROUGH FAITH, the exact same thing that Paul attributes to Gentiles, NOT about all that is given.

Ro 10:12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

This is speaking of salvation, NOT about all that is given;

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But you are ignoring the very next verse, which tell s you what it's talking about;
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE.

The single promise!

We are either one in Christ or one in a lost condition.
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do
not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to
every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
I do realize the reason you are fighting so hard to prove this wrong.
Dispensationalism stands or falls on this belief.

Actually, that is totally untrue. As a matter of fact, most dispensationalists would probably disagree with me, and side with you on this issue. The truth is that this issue doesn't effect dispensationalism in the least. But it is surely the end of Covenant Theology. If we're not under the New Covenant (and we're not), it
eliminates your entire theology.

If the New Covenant is in effect and we, the Church of Jesus Christ, inherit the promises of the New Covenant then Dispensationalism can't stand.

It's an irrelevant point because there are no scriptures which say you are to inherit the promises OR the New Covenant. These are things that CTers need to have a theology, and they don't exist.

It is shown to be false teaching. I have to say that if you have to take scripture out of context and twist and turn the scriptures to prove your belief then it should give you pause.

AMEN!!! Now realize that there are NO SCRIPTURES that say we inherit promises, that the New Covenant is for Gentiles, that Gentiles are Israel, or that we're currently under the New Covenant. Any one of these being true brings your theology to an end by the way.

Gotta go to my tee time. There are other important things besides debating the scriptures, you know. Golf is not a matter of life and death, it is more important than that.

Finally we agree on something.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

But nor the Galatians nor you went back to the land Israel.

Now come on holdon is that all you can answer? I have shown you direct scripture saying that the promises of God are not counted through the bloodline but through faith.
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.
Paul here defines what a Jew really is. A Jew is not someone who is of the bloodline but someone who is of faith.

The Jews in John 8:39 said that Abraham was their father and Jesus told them later that they were of their father the Devil. Obviously Jesus was showing that bloodline means nothing concerning the promises of God.

Gal 3:9 plainly says that they who are of faith are counted as children of Abraham and he goes on to say heirs of the promise of God, not just one but all of them. God is not a respecter of persons.

Gal 4:4-7 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

We have been adopted and are the sons of God. As sons we are heirs of all that God has given his children. To think that God would be so unjust as to give to one son and refuse an adopted son is an indictment against God.

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Now come on holdon is that all you can answer? I have shown you direct scripture saying that the promises of God are not counted through the bloodline but through faith.

Now, if you believe and if you claim you're under the New Covenant, you should be in Israel.
Because per your own saying the promises of God are for you (since you're a believer) and you previously alleged that you're under the physical promises of the New Covenant. Mazzeltov.

 

[GLJCA]

Now, if you believe and if you claim you're under the New Covenant, you should be in Israel.
Because per your own saying the promises of God are for you (since you're a believer) and you previously alleged that you're under the physical promises of the New Covenant. Mazzeltov.

Now, if you believe and if you claim you're under the New Covenant, you should be in Israel.
Because per your own saying the promises of God are for you (since you're a believer) and you previously alleged that you're under the physical promises of the New Covenant. Mazzeltov.

Apparently you have not read the scripture I gave you from Paul showing that Abraham was given the whole world for an inheritance. Rom 4:13

You are mistakenly thinking that the promises of God are geographic and they aren't. You are also mistakenly thinking that the promises follow the bloodline contrary to what the Bible says.

Being in Israel has nothing to do with it and I really think you know it too but because you have no other argument you have to keep saying the same thing.

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Apparently you have not read the scripture I gave you from Paul showing that Abraham was given the whole world for an inheritance. Rom 4:13

You are mistakenly thinking that the promises of God are geographic and they aren't. You are also mistakenly thinking that the promises follow the bloodline contrary to what the Bible says.

Being in Israel has nothing to do with it and I really think you know it too but because you have no other argument you have to keep saying the same thing.

GLJCA

I keep saying the same thing, because you keep producing the same error: that we are physically under the New Covenant. That's all.

 

[Tychicum]

Apparently you have not read the scripture I gave you from Paul showing that Abraham was given the whole world for an inheritance. Rom 4:13

You are mistakenly thinking that the promises of God are geographic and they aren't. You are also mistakenly thinking that the promises follow the bloodline contrary to what the Bible says.

Being in Israel has nothing to do with it and I really think you know it too but because you have no other argument you have to keep saying the same thing.

GLJCA

So you must count the geographic references as just "spiritual" ...?

And what of the bloodline? You don't believe that part either?

Interesting ...

If you rationalize those Scriptures away ... what would bring you to the one Forum where the most literal understanding of Scripture is discussed?


.

 

[GLJCA]

So you must count the geographic references as just "spiritual" ...?

And what of the bloodline? You don't believe that part either?

Interesting ...

If you rationalize those Scriptures away ... what would bring you to the one Forum where the most literal understanding of Scripture is discussed?

Abraham himself must have thought that God gave him more than that little bitty strip of land in the middle east.
Heb 11:9-10 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.
What city was he looking for? The heavenly Jerusalem which is the Church of Jesus Christ.
Heb 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

what would bring you to the one Forum where the most literal understanding of Scripture is discussed?

Please, you guys may do alot of things but you don't take the book of Revelation literally. In fact, Dispys can't even get by Rev 1:1 with their literal interpretation.
...to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass... Obviously you don't think that is literal because you have to say that "shortly" could mean 1000 years. If you took it literally you would have to say that shortly means shortly.

Rev 1:3 Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.
If you take this literally then you would have to say that John was telling the Christians to whom he was writing that something was going to happen really quick and within a few years it did.

It is not taking it literally to think that what John was writing about would not happen for 2000+ years.

Why would those people need to hear that they need to endure the suffering spoken about in the book of Revelation when they wouldn't experience any of it?
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Nero not only cast them into prison but he butchered, burned alive, and persecuted the Church of Jesus Christ. They had to endure exactly what John had told them that they would endure.

Dispys do not believe in the most literal interpretation of scripture.

You say that stars in Rev 6 are literal yet the star in Rev 9 isn't, yet you have no basis to show why the you interpret one literally and the other figurative. Fact is that Dispys have no reasoning of why they interpret the scriptures literally or figurative. Maybe you could tell me what basis you have to interpret Rev 6:12-13 as literal?

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

I keep saying the same thing, because you keep producing the same error: that we are physically under the New Covenant. That's all.

If you are not physically in the New Covenant then you are lost in your sins. Bottom line.

Dispys are inconsistent.

1. You say that we are not in the New Covenant yet you point to the shed blood of Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant, as what washes away your sins.

2. You say, We are not in the New Covenant yet you accept the forgiveness of sins, which is a promise of the New Covenant.

3. You say, We are not in the New Covenant yet you call God your God, which is a promise of the New Covenant.

4. You say, we are not in the New Covenant yet you celebrate the Lord Supper which celebrates the body and blood of Christ which initiated the New Covenant.

5. You say that the New Covenant will not come about until a future date when the Bible says that it was "of force" upon the death of the testor, Jesus Christ, but that doesn't stop you from claiming the promises of the New Covenant.

That is the pinnacle of inconsistency.

GLJCA

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

If you are not physically in the New Covenant then you are lost in your sins. Bottom line.

What book? What capter? What verse?

Dispys are inconsistent.
1. You say that we are not in the New Covenant yet you point to the shed blood of Christ, which is the blood of the New Covenant, as what washes away your sins.

Was the blood of Christ for the New Covenant only? Or did the blood of Christ cover those Old Covenant sins that the high priests offered the blood of animals for? Read Hbr 9 for the answer. The blood of Christ covers BOTH covenants. He obtained one, and established the way for the other.

2. You say, We are not in the New Covenant yet you accept the forgiveness of sins, which is a promise of the New Covenant.

Where does the Bible say that? When the high priest entered into the holy place with the blood of animals every year, was that in the Old Covenant, or new? Did the blood of Christ cover the sins in the Old Covenant, or the New? Hbr 9:15 says the blood was for the sins of the Old Covenant.

3. You say, We are not in the New Covenant yet you call God your God, which is a promise of the New Covenant.

Isaac called God his God. Isaac's sins are forgiven. Was Isaac alive when you say the New Covenant began? We, like Isaac are children of the Old Covenant promise.
Where does the Bible say calling God our God is a New Covenant promise? I'll bet you'll never tell me where this is said in the Bible.

4. You say, we are not in the New Covenant yet you celebrate the Lord Supper which celebrates the body and blood of Christ which initiated the New Covenant.

Christ never said we were under the New Covenant. Christ never said He was initiating the New Covenant. Christ said His blood was for the New Covenant, drink it in remembrance of Him, and He would drink it new with them IN THE FUTURE.

5. You say that the New Covenant will not come about until a future date when the Bible says that it was "of force" upon the death of the testor, Jesus Christ, but that doesn't stop you from claiming the promises of the New Covenant.

"Of force"- bebaios {beb'-ah-yos}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 1:600,103 from the base of 939 (through the idea of basality)
Part of Speech
adj
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) stable, fast, firm
2) metaph. sure, trusty
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 9
AV - stedfast 4, sure 2, firm 1, of force 1, more sure 1; 9
Read the words very carefully. They say the New Covenant was ESTABLISHED. That's what the term "of force" means. Compare it to the word OBTAINED;
"Obtained"- tugchano {toong-khan'-o}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 8:238,1191 probably for an obsolete tucho (for which the middle voice of another alternate teucho [to make ready or bring to pass] is used in certain tenses, akin to the base of 5088 through the idea of effecting
Part of Speech
v
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to hit the mark
a) of one discharging a javelin or arrow
2) to reach, attain, obtain, get, become master of
3) to happen, chance, fall out
a) to specify, to take a case, as for example
4) to meet one
5) of he who meets one or presents himself unsought, any chance, ordinary, common person
6) to chance to be
Surely you see the difference in the two words. Any honest individual can see the difference. One means to obtain, the other means to establish.

That is the pinnacle of inconsistency.

The truth is right in front of us. We only need to look more closely and more carefully.

God Bless!