Righteousness through Faith -vs- Righteousness through the Law

[Don Maurer]

Here are all the Bible verses that contain "new covenant":
(SNIP)

• Matt 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
• Mark 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
• Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
• 1 Cor 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
  • (SNIP)

To B Griffin:
It interests me if Guojing has communion in his Church and if he participates? If he does, do you think he believes himself to be Israel?

 

[Guojing]

Here are all the Bible verses that contain "new covenant":

• Jer 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah
• Matt 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
• Mark 14:24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
• Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
• 1 Cor 11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
• 2 Cor 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
• Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah
• Heb 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
• Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
• Heb 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

It is obvious that Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant, that He shed His blood "for many" and "for the remission of sins", and that His "blood" is the "blood of the new covenant". You are not implying, are you, that the new covenant will be made at some point in the future and that explicitly only the house of Israel and Judah will participate in it?

If you follow the KJV, they used testament instead in many of your above scripture passages.

There is a difference between testament and covenant.

 

[Guojing]

To B Griffin:
It interests me if Guojing has communion in his Church and if he participates? If he does, do you think he believes himself to be Israel?

There is a difference between testament and covenant.

 

[Guojing]

The New Covenant was explicitly made with Israel in Jeremiah 31. Are you saying that it never applies to anyone other than Israel?

So you agree with my point, but you want to claim that promise for yourself as well?

Fyi, Jeremiah 31:31 used the future tense, as Hebrews 8:8, so it is not "was".

 

[Guojing]

You are not implying, are you, that the new covenant will be made at some point in the future and that explicitly only the house of Israel and Judah will participate in it?

That is what Hebrews 8:8 is saying. I don't want to change it nor add to that scripture passage.

 

[Don Maurer]

So you agree with my point, but you want to claim that promise for yourself as well?

Fyi, Jeremiah 31:31 used the future tense, as Hebrews 8:8, so it is not "was".

I symbolically claim the promises each and every month during communion. I assume you do not participate in Communion if those promises are for Israel?

Concerning the future tense....
You confuse me here. It is painfully obvious that the verb συντελεσω is future tense, but you shockingly seem to be saying that the author of Hebrews is quoting Jeremiah 31 to make a point that the New Covenant is yet future. That is so obviously not the case. Have you bothered to look at the context before saying such things?

The reason the word συντελεσω is future tense is because it is a direct quote from Jeremiah 31:31. I do not have a copy of an LXX to check out the exact wording of the LXX, but I am guessing that this is a direct quote. Being that is probably true it is completely unnecessary for the writer of Hebrews to change the tense of the verb συντελεσω. That would be to misquote Jeremiah. So then, anyone quoting Jeremiah will always be using a future tense for the rest of eternity. If that is the way you read the text, there will never be a fulfillment of this prophecy.

The point of the quote is important and obvious. He is quoting the Jeremiah passage to demonstrate that the old covenant is obsolete and ready to disappear.

Guojing, you seem to be reaching for anything to make arguments. You also seem unwilling to ask yourself the question why your church has a communion service, and why communion is celebrated referring to the New Covenant (or testament). It is obvious you refused to answer the question---> do you participate in Communion? Of course if you admit you participate in communion, that is an end of the discussion because at least in some way you are celebrating being under the New Covenant.

By the way, the English word testament or covenant is not important. Either English word can be used to translate η διαθηκη.

 

[Guojing]

I symbolically claim the promises each and every month during communion. I assume you do not participate in Communion if those promises are for Israel?

We are under the New Testament, so I do.

As I said, there is a distinction between the meaning of Testament and Covenant.

 

[Don Maurer]

B Griffin said:

You are not implying, are you, that the new covenant will be made at some point in the future and that explicitly only the house of Israel and Judah will participate in it?

That is what Hebrews 8:8 is saying. I don't want to change it nor add to that scripture passage.

I do not want to speak for B Griffin, so I will not be addressing Guojings responce, but the above statement makes me realize how little Guojing knows about the subject he is trying to talk about.

I am OK with Guojing thinking that there could be a futuristic aspect to the New Covenant, and that that the New Covenant will will be fulfilled in Israel in the future, but my problem is that Guojing sees no connection between the New Covenant and today.
--> This would mean that there is no connection between the shed blood of Christ and the New Covenant.
--> To remember the blood of the New Covenant is exactly why Christ instituted communion.
These are points that totally escape Guojing. I am guessing he will continue not to adress points like this. I already raised issues like this and he did not answer or even adress the points. I can understand that he is confused on how to answer questions like this because if he does participate in communion and also denies that the New Covenant is for today, that could be considered hypocry.

DIFFERENT DISPENSATIONAL POSITIONS:
I am aware that there are different positions on New Covenant fulfillment. Even many dispensationalists would at least agree that we are under the New Covenant in some way, but would aviod the term "fulfillment." Progressive Dispensationalist Eric Saucy uses language such as "the new Covenant has been inagurated at the cross." The only dispensationalst that came to different conclusions was L S Chafer ( I think). I believe it was Chafer that came to the bizzare conclusion that there was 2 New Covenants, one for Israel to be fulfilled in the Millenium, and one for the Church for today. At least he agreed that in some way, the New Covenant was for Christians today. Guojing does not fit the mold of a dispensationalist, because all dispensationalists at least will agree that in some form, the New Covenant is for today. Guojing denies the New Covenant has any connection to the Church today.

COVENANT THEOLOGIANS AND A FUTURE FOR GENETIC ISRAEL
I just finished Riddlebarger's book on Amillenialism. It is an old volume and not up to date, but was worth the read. In the book Riddlebarger sees a future for Israel and has a discussion on Romans 11:26, when the text says "all Israel will be saved." Even amillenialist Kim Riddlebarger saw a future in some form for genetic Israel. The point is that I do not see it as the worse thing that Guojing sees a future for the New Covenant being applied to Israel. All dispensationalsts see the same thing, and some in the reformed community do also. The really unbiblical and bad part of Guojing's statements is that he sees no connection with the New Covenant and the believer today.

CONCLUSION
Guojing seems to be an uninformed person who wants to come here and win some argument. It does not seem to me wise to be engaged in this discussion any further.

 

[Guojing]

By the way, the English word testament or covenant is not important. Either English word can be used to translate η διαθηκη.

You mean to tell me you are unaware that the same Greek word can mean different things, depending on the context?

If you are, then you won't be making this silly point.

 

[Guojing]

These are points that totally escape Guojing. I am guessing he will continue not to adress points like this. I already raised issues like this and he did not answer or even adress the points. I can understand that he is confused on how to answer questions like this because if he does participate in communion and also denies that the New Covenant is for today, that could be considered hypocry.

There is a difference in meaning between Testament and Covenant, that was my reply to your point.

Just because you disagree with my answer does not mean I did not give you one.

 

[B Griffin]

If you follow the KJV, they used testament instead in many of your above scripture passages.

There is a difference between testament and covenant.

I do wonder what is the source of your misunderstandings about basic Christian concepts like in this instance Jesus being the mediator of the New Covenant which was foretold in Jeremiah and explicitly explained to be fulfilled in Christ in Hebrews and previously when you pointed to other competing "gospels" in rejection of the warnings in Galatians to reject those who bring a different gospel. Hopefully it is just bad teaching and not something worse.

 

[B Griffin]

That is what Hebrews 8:8 is saying. I don't want to change it nor add to that scripture passage.

LOL, Hebrews 8:8 is quoting Jeremiah, so of course it would be in the future in respect to his prophesy. But that it is not in the future, but in the past at the time of the writing of Hebrews is obvious throughout the passage as the writer explains how Jesus fulfilled the prophesy in His death, burial, resurrection, and never ending intercession for us that has the result of completely sanctifying us, perfecting us forever, and saving us to the uttermost.

[Edit: I posted this before I saw Don's reply, which I fully agree with].

 

[B Griffin]

B Griffin said:

You are not implying, are you, that the new covenant will be made at some point in the future and that explicitly only the house of Israel and Judah will participate in it?



I do not want to speak for B Griffin, so I will not be addressing Guojings responce, but the above statement makes me realize how little Guojing knows about the subject he is trying to talk about.

I am OK with Guojing thinking that there could be a futuristic aspect to the New Covenant, and that that the New Covenant will will be fulfilled in Israel in the future, but my problem is that Guojing sees no connection between the New Covenant and today.
--> This would mean that there is no connection between the shed blood of Christ and the New Covenant.
--> To remember the blood of the New Covenant is exactly why Christ instituted communion.
These are points that totally escape Guojing. I am guessing he will continue not to adress points like this. I already raised issues like this and he did not answer or even adress the points. I can understand that he is confused on how to answer questions like this because if he does participate in communion and also denies that the New Covenant is for today, that could be considered hypocry.

DIFFERENT DISPENSATIONAL POSITIONS:
I am aware that there are different positions on New Covenant fulfillment. Even many dispensationalists would at least agree that we are under the New Covenant in some way, but would aviod the term "fulfillment." Progressive Dispensationalist Eric Saucy uses language such as "the new Covenant has been inagurated at the cross." The only dispensationalst that came to different conclusions was L S Chafer ( I think). I believe it was Chafer that came to the bizzare conclusion that there was 2 New Covenants, one for Israel to be fulfilled in the Millenium, and one for the Church for today. At least he agreed that in some way, the New Covenant was for Christians today. Guojing does not fit the mold of a dispensationalist, because all dispensationalists at least will agree that in some form, the New Covenant is for today. Guojing denies the New Covenant has any connection to the Church today.

COVENANT THEOLOGIANS AND A FUTURE FOR GENETIC ISRAEL
I just finished Riddlebarger's book on Amillenialism. It is an old volume and not up to date, but was worth the read. In the book Riddlebarger sees a future for Israel and has a discussion on Romans 11:26, when the text says "all Israel will be saved." Even amillenialist Kim Riddlebarger saw a future in some form for genetic Israel. The point is that I do not see it as the worse thing that Guojing sees a future for the New Covenant being applied to Israel. All dispensationalsts see the same thing, and some in the reformed community do also. The really unbiblical and bad part of Guojing's statements is that he sees no connection with the New Covenant and the believer today.

CONCLUSION
Guojing seems to be an uninformed person who wants to come here and win some argument. It does not seem to me wise to be engaged in this discussion any further.

The words of the new covenant completely delineate what God had in mind for our righteousness. He telegraphed His plan hundreds of years before He brought it to pass:

“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33): God’s plan for making us right with Him was to transform us from the inside by coming to live in our hearts. His coming to live in us would ingrain His laws into us and make our hearts right with Him.

“I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer. 31:33): God living in us would make us His children and would give us His divine nature. With new hearts, we would be the holy and righteous people God always wanted us to be, and we would be right with Him.

“No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord” (Jer. 31:34): His intent was that from inside our hearts He would personally reveal Himself and His will to us. By Spirit-to-spirit communications, He would lead us, guide us into all truth, and teach us everything He wanted us to know.

“For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34): God knew that to accomplish these things, He would have to deal with the sins that separated us from Him. So He prepared a human body for His Son, sacrificed Him on a cross for our sins, and conquered death on our behalf by raising Him from the dead.

 

[Guojing]

LOL, Hebrews 8:8 is quoting Jeremiah, so of course it would be in the future in respect to his prophesy. But that it is not in the future, but in the past at the time of the writing of Hebrews is obvious throughout the passage as the writer explains how Jesus fulfilled the prophesy in His death, burial, resurrection, and never ending intercession for us that has the result of completely sanctifying us, perfecting us forever, and saving us to the uttermost.

[Edit: I posted this before I saw Don's reply, which I fully agree with].

There is nothing in Hebrews that stated that the New Covenant has begun. Its all future tense.

If you disagree, show me the passages that made you think its obvious

 

[Guojing]

I do wonder what is the source of your misunderstandings about basic Christian concepts like in this instance Jesus being the mediator of the New Covenant which was foretold in Jeremiah and explicitly explained to be fulfilled in Christ in Hebrews and previously when you pointed to other competing "gospels" in rejection of the warnings in Galatians to reject those who bring a different gospel. Hopefully it is just bad teaching and not something worse.

Its based on understanding scripture literally, and not assuming that

1. We are Israel
2. Testament is equivalent to Covenant.

If you assume any of the 2, do make that clear, thanks.

 

[Guojing]

The words of the new covenant completely delineate what God had in mind for our righteousness. He telegraphed His plan hundreds of years before He brought it to pass:

“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33): God’s plan for making us right with Him was to transform us from the inside by coming to live in our hearts. His coming to live in us would ingrain His laws into us and make our hearts right with Him.

“I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer. 31:33): God living in us would make us His children and would give us His divine nature. With new hearts, we would be the holy and righteous people God always wanted us to be, and we would be right with Him.

“No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord” (Jer. 31:34): His intent was that from inside our hearts He would personally reveal Himself and His will to us. By Spirit-to-spirit communications, He would lead us, guide us into all truth, and teach us everything He wanted us to know.

“For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34): God knew that to accomplish these things, He would have to deal with the sins that separated us from Him. So He prepared a human body for His Son, sacrificed Him on a cross for our sins, and conquered death on our behalf by raising Him from the dead.

With all these interpretations you are making of Hebrews 8:8-12 here, are you saying that we are also part of the House of Israel and Judah?

 

[Don Maurer]

The words of the new covenant completely delineate what God had in mind for our righteousness. He telegraphed His plan hundreds of years before He brought it to pass:

“I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33): God’s plan for making us right with Him was to transform us from the inside by coming to live in our hearts. His coming to live in us would ingrain His laws into us and make our hearts right with Him.

“I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer. 31:33): God living in us would make us His children and would give us His divine nature. With new hearts, we would be the holy and righteous people God always wanted us to be, and we would be right with Him.

“No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord” (Jer. 31:34): His intent was that from inside our hearts He would personally reveal Himself and His will to us. By Spirit-to-spirit communications, He would lead us, guide us into all truth, and teach us everything He wanted us to know.

“For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more” (Jer. 31:34): God knew that to accomplish these things, He would have to deal with the sins that separated us from Him. So He prepared a human body for His Son, sacrificed Him on a cross for our sins, and conquered death on our behalf by raising Him from the dead.

Of course, I agree with all this.

 

[B Griffin]

There is nothing in Hebrews that stated that the New Covenant has begun. Its all future tense.

If you disagree, show me the passages that made you think its obvious

You have got to be kidding. Here is a small sampling...

"Therefore He is also able (present tense) to save (present tense) to the uttermost those who come (present tense) to God through Him, since He always lives (present tense) to make intercession for them." (Heb 7:25)

"Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered (aorist tense - simple action in past time) the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained (aorist middle participle - time of action preceeding action of main verb) eternal redemption. "(Heb 9:12).

"By that will we have been (present tense) sanctified (perfect participle - action that has enduring results to the present time) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb 10:10)

"19 Therefore, brethren, having (present participle - time of action consistent with action of main verb) boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living (present participle - time of action consistent with action of main verb) way which He consecrated (aorist tense - simple action in past time) for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and having a High Priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near (main verb - present tense) with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled (perfect participle - action that has enduring results to the present time) from an evil conscience and our bodies washed (perfect participle - action that has enduring results to the present time) with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast (main verb - present tense) the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised (aorist participle - time of action preceeding action of main verb) is faithful." (Heb 10:19–23)

And we see that Jesus died in past time, is living now in present time, is able to save in present time, and is able to keep us saved for all time. As a result, at the present time we are to not waver in our confidence in Him because He is the most trustworthy person in the universe.

 

[B Griffin]

Its based on understanding scripture literally, and not assuming that

1. We are Israel
2. Testament is equivalent to Covenant.

If you assume any of the 2, do make that clear, thanks.

1) Although the promise was made specifically to Israel, it extends to everyone. This is also obvious. Most clearly it is stated here:

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (Jn 1:10–13)​

2) Every verse in the Bible that contains the words "new covenant" is speaking of the same "new covenant".

 

[B Griffin]

With all these interpretations you are making of Hebrews 8:8-12 here, are you saying that we are also part of the House of Israel and Judah?

Actually, I was explaining Jeremiah's words, though they are repeated verbatim in Hebrews. And yes, I am saying that we enjoy the blessings that are in Christ that were promised to Israel and Judah. You do know it was always a faith-based test that would determine who are the descendents of Abraham, right?

​

9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”​

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.​

[The New King James Version (Ro 4:9–25). (1982). Thomas Nelson.]​

and,

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. (Ro 9:6–8)​

​

and,

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:​

​

“Rejoice, O barren,​

You who do not bear!​

Break forth and shout,​

You who are not in labor!​

For the desolate has many more children​

Than she who has a husband.”​

​

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.​

The New King James Version (Ga 4:21–31). (1982). Thomas Nelson.​