Why do dispensationalists chop up the bible into different ages?

[Dorothy Mae]

So truth depends on frail people? And not scripture?

Truth is truth and depends upon no man. Why do you think something at all depended upon Calvin? Who do you think he was?

 

[Dave L]

Truth is truth and depends upon no man. Why do you think something at all depended upon Calvin? Who do you think he was?

So if what he said is true about sin and grace, many hate God?

 

[nolidad]

That’s merely claiming their position is the best because they’re the best. It’s a bad sign when a summary of a position starts with that sort of statement. A genuine confidence in a position does not start that way but presents the position sans self praise. Next time stop the glowing adjectives. They’re not even all true and make you look weak.

That is not a statement of superiority but simply a statement that declares the methodology used in understanding SCripture!

That is also not promising. Is there anyone who thinks the Bible writers never used symbols? This is not saying anything worth saying.

Well it is added because people have accused dispies of being too woodenly literal and not recognizing symbolic passages.

Not true. Some passages were intentionally written with more than one meaning, to communicate more than one point.

Then I await you producing one that has an intentional double meaning. Once again, a passage has only one interpretation, but can have many applications in a persons life.

God is unable to maintain faithful communication down through the centuries? Since the originals are lost, this says we have no inerrant and infallible written communication from those who walked with God and were commissioned to write down what He inspired them to write. Bummer.

Any letter when translated from one language to another gets watered down due to linguistic problems. I did not say that English translations per se' are errant, but they lack in thre sense they do not always paint the full picture the orignal languages did. Doctrinally most translations are error free. but of all the English translations, Kiel and Delitzsch' 10 volume Hebrew and Kittels 10 volume English of the New TEstament are the best.

This is known by anyone whose ever read any book not written in their mother tongue from their culture. There are today languages and cultures very different than ours. Not really worth saying.

That is naive at best. Idioms in one language do not carry over well in another unless the translatrors know the idiom. One classic example is this:
Rom. 9:13 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

This phrase is a Jewish idiomatic phrase. If one doesn't know what is being said, they come off with the entire wrong idea.

Christians everywhere believe this. So far no Statements distinguishing your postion.

Then you need to learn some of the doctrines of churches other than yours. Many hold to the cross plus works.

I can’t really speak to that but next time you meet one of these, ask if the life, death and resurrection of Jesus was just an allegory and no man actually did any of that in real flesh and blood.

Well an "evangelicial sect" believes and teaches in its seminary it is not important if Jesus really died and physically rose- it was just a metaphor.

Well I doubt one of them believes all of that. But I don’t answer for what others believe.

Well not one person individually- but churches out there hold to an enormous swing in "end times' events.

BTW what methodology do you use to understand SCripture. I have told you mine- what is yours.

 

[nolidad]

Martin Luther thought the Pope was the Antichrist. Since the Catholics mudered probably millions, they aren’t. Some individuals are. The church is not.

Well some still do todasy. Though he cannot be.

Who besides Calvin? How can you think the Inqisition that went on killing Christians for 500 years is just like other christians?? Don’t you see a demonic evil in that? The catholics burned bibles and you think they’re a main line denomination!!!

They are within the realm of Christendom. That is the external "form" of the church. I know many many Catholics who are saved. I do not support Catholicism at all ( I was removed from teh church under penalty of facing a trial for heresy). But in the midst of all the other junk- the gospel is there.

No it isn’t.

As a catholic for the first 25 years of my life and having gone to seminary- I know you are wrong. It is just buried behind so much other stuff.

There are individual Catholics who are Christians but they are those who don’t believe the core teachings of the catholics in Rome.

Well if the core teachings of Rome are different than the catechisms then I agree. Do not mis-understand, I am not a fan of catholicism, but it is a sect wiothin Christendom, just like the snake handlers and yes even that evil
baptist Church that protests at funerals and such.

 

[nolidad]

But that isn't what you are fully saying, you believe someone can be a proud homosexual for instance, while believing in Christ and going to heaven. Because they changed their mind became saved and have not yet changed their heart. What I am saying with over 100 verses backing it up is that we must repent of sin at the time of conversion. It's not a process of mentally changing our mind and years later changing our behaviour. Again this is a hypocritical way to see salvation.

I never even implied that! For that isn't what I said- but what you read into my words.
Tell me when you accepted Christ, did you get rid of every thing you learned is sin immediately and never went back to one of them ever again?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That is not a statement of superiority but simply a statement that declares the methodology used in understanding SCripture!

It’s assumed by you. I think it does not accurately express your view at all. But we can move on.

Well it is added because people have accused dispies of being too woodenly literal and not recognizing symbolic passages.

Ok. I’m not one of them.

Then I await you producing one that has an intentional double meaning. Once again, a passage has only one interpretation, but can have many applications in a persons life.

“God himself will provide the sacrifice.” Which sacrifice? Just one?

Any letter when translated from one language to another gets watered down due to linguistic problems. I did not say that English translations per se' are errant, but they lack in thre sense they do not always paint the full picture the orignal languages did. Doctrinally most translations are error free. but of all the English translations, Kiel and Delitzsch' 10 volume Hebrew and Kittels 10 volume English of the New TEstament are the best.

Except that the Being who inspired it all and seeks relationship with the reader is still there. We aren’t talking Plato who is beyond the grave. This is a big difference.

That is naive at best. Idioms in one language do not carry over well in another unless the translatrors know the idiom. One classic example is this:
Rom. 9:13 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
This phrase is a Jewish idiomatic phrase. If one doesn't know what is being said, they come off with the entire wrong idea.

Anyone who is bilingual knows this. I still think it’s hardly worth saying to educated people but I suppose the uneducated should be aware of this.

Then you need to learn some of the doctrines of churches other than yours. Many hold to the cross plus works.

Please don’t assume i’m ignorant. These are pretty rare among the hundreds of believers I’ve known. Doesn’t really touch the dispensationists.

Well an "evangelicial sect" believes and teaches in its seminary it is not important if Jesus really died and physically rose- it was just a metaphor.

Really? Worse than I thought. My apologies. Guess that needs to be said.

Well not one person individually- but churches out there hold to an enormous swing in "end times' events.

Like what? I can’t think of any.

BTW what methodology do you use to understand SCripture. I have told you mine- what is yours.

Historical as well as compare scripture with scripture which is easy as I know the whole Bible well. I look at the original language as well. Probably the strongest method has come in living out the teaching as it became clear to me. This brought tremendous insight.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well some still do todasy. Though he cannot be.

I agree.

They are within the realm of Christendom. That is the external "form" of the church. I know many many Catholics who are saved.

I know many catholics who are not. They believe they are not to read the Bible but just listen to the priest.

But in the midst of all the other junk- the gospel is there.

Too many only know the junk.

As a catholic for the first 25 years of my life and having gone to seminary- I know you are wrong. It is just buried behind so much other stuff.

I also know catholics who say they never heard the Gospel and were saved when protestants shared the gospel. They’d never heard it.

Well if the core teachings of Rome are different than the catechisms then I agree. Do not mis-understand, I am not a fan of catholicism, but it is a sect wiothin Christendom, just like the snake handlers and yes even that evil
baptist Church that protests at funerals and such.

We can leave that one. It’s not really important to us.

 

[nolidad]

It’s assumed by you. I think it does not accurately express your view at all. But we can move on.

Please do not try to read my mind and heart. You have failed terribly.

“God himself will provide the sacrifice.” Which sacrifice? Just one?

I assume you are talking about Abraham and Isaac on Mount MOriah. You seem to forget that the Old is shadows and types for teh new! Yes God did provide the immediate sacrifice, but that sacrifice was a type of the Lamb that would take away the sins of the world! The literal immediate lamb is not negated by the type it represented.

Except that the Being who inspired it all and seeks relationship with the reader is still there. We aren’t talking Plato who is beyond the grave. This is a big difference.

I agree! But when you have a translation of the OT say that comes from the Septuagint, you have a translation of a translation. It is doctrinally sound, but weaknes portions just simply because it has gone through 2 languages!

Example Genesis 6: 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Giant is a very poor poor translation! The original word was nephilim, translated titanus in Greek and giant in English. But the nephilim were the fallen ones! or fallen angels who left heaven.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never even implied that! For that isn't what I said- but what you read into my words.
Tell me when you accepted Christ, did you get rid of every thing you learned is sin immediately and never went back to one of them ever again?

yes sir, that is the critical question. see I believe addictive sins, and being a carnal christian in the sense of sinning daily but still having shame over ones sins is a sign of life. But the same person if they are homosexual for instance, and is proud of their sin and believes God accepts homosexuality as normal and not sinful (for example), that is not a sign of life. That is why I used that illustration. But free gracers fail on this one illustration because they typically have not diffrentiated between apostate views and carnal christian actions. This is deep theological stuff, I admit. But in the circles I run with they speak of this all the time and it is not uncommon to hear such stuff at any one of our church services. One is 'sinning' and one is 'practicing sin.' God forgives the sin of the ungodly if they repent. However if they practice sin and are proud about it, they have not repented. Even though they believe in christ they are not saved. I just read a verse today, lets see what the Holy Spirit says through this verse:

Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Luke 3:7‭-‬9 NKJV

again in conclusion, the free gracers that I have read and studied: chafer, ryrie, wilkins, hodges, walvwoord, zuck, scofield. They all adhere to a universal carnal christian view. That means that they have no condemnation of homosexuality, yes they agree it's a sin, but homosexuality does not remove salvation any more than your typical lie, or lustful sin. And that would be where I disagree. See while lust and lying, is a sin, most are ashamed of the sin and repent afterward, even if they are addicted. That is a sign of life, however homosexuality has a movement that is proud of their sin, that is different than shame. And that is not a sign of life. I have seen free gracers mention that such people are not christian, but they have no official way of proving such allegations. Namely if a universal carnal christianity is allowed, then people can ultimately do whatever they want. As they have changed mentally their mind, but they have not yet changed their action, as you admit, may take years or decades. So who is to say they have not yet repented of sin? And that my friend is not in scripture, he who practices sin is of the devil it says in 1 John 3:8, but he who confesses and repents of his sin (as many as they may be) are forgiven: 1 John 1:9

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Please do not try to read my mind and heart. You have failed terribly.

When you use glowing adjectives to describe position A and somewhat negative adjectives to describe position B, it tells anyone reading your words that you think position A. By your words you reveal your mind. By your insistence that those adjectives are “simply true” and in no way your personal opinion
, you reveal your heart that you are not willing to give other views besides yours any credit. One doesn’t need to read your mind and heart through magic, one just needs to read your words. As the person is on the inside, so they speak.

I assume you are talking about Abraham and Isaac on Mount MOriah. You seem to forget that the Old is shadows and types for teh new! Yes God did provide the immediate sacrifice, but that sacrifice was a type of the Lamb that would take away the sins of the world! The literal immediate lamb is not negated by the type it represented.

Still has TWO meanings. You asked for a verse with 2 meanings. I can give lots without any effort. I didn’t look that one up even. I knew it.

I agree! But when you have a translation of the OT say that comes from the Septuagint, you have a translation of a translation. It is doctrinally sound, but weaknes portions just simply because it has gone through 2 languages!

Well, I think we’ve been given everything we need to live according to Godliness. Don’t you agree?

Example Genesis 6: 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Giant is a very poor poor translation! The original word was nephilim, translated titanus in Greek and giant in English. But the nephilim were the fallen ones! or fallen angels who left heaven.

I agree 100%. Feels nice to agree doesn’t it?

 

[nolidad]

yes sir, that is the critical question. see I believe addictive sins, and being a carnal christian in the sense of sinning daily but still having shame over ones sins is a sign of life. But the same person if they are homosexual for instance, and is proud of their sin and believes God accepts homosexuality as normal and not sinful (for example), that is not a sign of life. That is why I used that illustration. But free gracers fail on this one illustration because they typically have not diffrentiated between apostate views and carnal christian actions. This is deep theological stuff, I admit. But in the circles I run with they speak of this all the time and it is not uncommon to hear such stuff at any one of our church services. One is 'sinning' and one is 'practicing sin.' God forgives the sin of the ungodly if they repent. However if they practice sin and are proud about it, they have not repented. Even though they believe in christ they are not saved. I just read a verse today, lets see what the Holy Spirit says through this verse:

Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
Luke 3:7‭-‬9 NKJV

again in conclusion, the free gracers that I have read and studied: chafer, ryrie, wilkins, hodges, walvwoord, zuck, scofield. They all adhere to a universal carnal christian view. That means that they have no condemnation of homosexuality, yes they agree it's a sin, but homosexuality does not remove salvation any more than your typical lie, or lustful sin. And that would be where I disagree. See while lust and lying, is a sin, most are ashamed of the sin and repent afterward, even if they are addicted. That is a sign of life, however homosexuality has a movement that is proud of their sin, that is different than shame. And that is not a sign of life. I have seen free gracers mention that such people are not christian, but they have no official way of proving such allegations. Namely if a universal carnal christianity is allowed, then people can ultimately do whatever they want. As they have changed mentally their mind, but they have not yet changed their action, as you admit, may take years or decades. So who is to say they have not yet repented of sin? And that my friend is not in scripture, he who practices sin is of the devil it says in 1 John 3:8, but he who confesses and repents of his sin (as many as they may be) are forgiven: 1 John 1:9

Well I cannot speak for all of them, but chafer, ryrie, walvoord, are not what you call "free gracers". They all agree that sin is sin. But as the Scriptures say- once one is born again they are saved forever! If a believer falls into sin, they are still saved- just being a disobedient child. Living like an unbeliever but still saved!

The Bible also does say that many will seem to wall the walk for a while then leave for they were never saved! Let me give an example.

An awesome Christian singer I loved listening to and still am able to worship God deeply with some of his songs recently came out and told the world he is gay and is now living with his boyfriend, and worshipping in one of the "accepting churches".

Is He saved and being a disobedient child for a season or was he never saved ? That is for God to decide, not me! If I ever meet Him I will tell him to change his mind (repent) and turn from HIs sin for God cannot fellowship while he is living in that sin!. But once one has a relationship- that can never be broken, but sdin breaks fellowship and when we acknowledge that sin- fellowship is restored!

 

[nolidad]

When you use glowing adjectives to describe position A and somewhat negative adjectives to describe position B, it tells anyone reading your words that you think position A. By your words you reveal your mind. By your insistence that those adjectives are “simply true” and in no way your personal opinion
, you reveal your heart that you are not willing to give other views besides yours any credit. One doesn’t need to read your mind and heart through magic, one just needs to read your words. As the person is on the inside, so they speak.

Well those definitions were definitions given by proponents of both sides!

Still has TWO meanings. You asked for a verse with 2 meanings. I can give lots without any effort. I didn’t look that one up even. I knew it.

Well actually it has one meaning! Gos will provide a sacrifice and He did with the ram in the thicket. See many in the covenant theology side would say the event only serves as a story to show the future sacrifice of Jesus. We see that God provoded the Lamb of God, but that doesn't necessarily mean this verse has two meanings. Abraham had no knowledge of Jesus being the Lamb of God! We do and attribute it as a double reference. but there is only one meaning- God provided the sacrifice. Then and at Calvary.

Well, I think we’ve been given everything we need to live according to Godliness. Don’t you agree?

That is what I meant when I said that the real translations ( I exclude MOffat, goodspeed, any Westoctt and Hort and the NWT) have no doctrinal errors! I appreciate knowing what was being said in its cultural setting, to get a richer deeper understanding of what was being said!

I agree 100%. Feels nice to agree doesn’t it?

Yes when what is agreed on is the truth!

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I cannot speak for all of them, but chafer, ryrie, walvoord, are not what you call "free gracers".

well that is not what I have seen:
Free grace theology - Wikipedia

They all agree that sin is sin. But as the Scriptures say- once one is born again they are saved forever! If a believer falls into sin, they are still saved- just being a disobedient child. Living like an unbeliever but still saved!

well apostacy is another topic, I have another thread just on that one topic, so you can reply there if you want (the thread is currently dead),
Can you lose your salvation

The Bible also does say that many will seem to wall the walk for a while then leave for they were never saved! Let me give an example.

An awesome Christian singer I loved listening to and still am able to worship God deeply with some of his songs recently came out and told the world he is gay and is now living with his boyfriend, and worshipping in one of the "accepting churches".

Is He saved and being a disobedient child for a season or was he never saved ? That is for God to decide, not me! If I ever meet Him I will tell him to change his mind (repent) and turn from HIs sin for God cannot fellowship while he is living in that sin!. But once one has a relationship- that can never be broken, but sdin breaks fellowship and when we acknowledge that sin- fellowship is restored!

again we are changing topics away from dispensationalism at this point. Apostacy doctrines are not typically held by dispensationalists, that is why I am a soft dispensationalist. But ryrie, chafer, walvwoord, zuck, hodges, and a host of others are free grace and believe in a similar view as OSAS.

but going back to repentance and free grace:
"
And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ,the Son of God!” And He, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that He was the Christ." Luke 4:41

Demons know Jesus is saviour, what does it make us if we believe it too? We must trust Him with our life, cry out to Him, make Him Lord and Master. Some say Lord, Lord...

 

[nolidad]

well that is not what I have seen:
Free grace theology - Wikipedia

Well I agree with that wiki definition. ( Iwas thinking of antinomianism-grace as a license to sin).

Grace is free, Paul made that clear in many of his epistles.

And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ,the Son of God!” And He, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that He was the Christ." Luke 4:41

Demons know Jesus is saviour, what does it make us if we believe it too? We must trust Him with our life, cry out to Him, make Him Lord and Master. Some say Lord, Lord...

You are misquoting thie verse! The demons cannot know Jesus as Savior because there is no salvation for the fallen angels.

well apostacy is another topic, I have another thread just on that one topic, so you can reply there if you want (the thread is currently dead),
Can you lose your salvation

Well read your OP and I cannot agree with it. You have a variation of maintaining your salvation by avoiding overt "bad sins" (or so it appears by your example)

OSAS is the biblical standard! Apostasy is one who was never said and fell away from the faith they "appeared to have".
2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

again we are changing topics away from dispensationalism at this point. Apostacy doctrines are not typically held by dispensationalists, that is why I am a soft dispensationalist. But ryrie, chafer, walvwoord, zuck, hodges, and a host of others are free grace and believe in a similar view as OSAS.

That is because OSAS is the truth! People who have problems with that fail to recognize that the New Testament clearly teaches positional truths and experiential truths.

OUr position is what God has already declared us to be (perfect, justified, glorified, dead in Christ, hidden in Christ, seated in heavenly places)

Our experience is simply growing onto what God has declared us to already be! that is known as sanctification or progressive growing in holiness!

You have to remember that people do not go to hell because they are sinners. they go to hell because they rejected the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sins, thus are left having ot pay the tab themselves! Sin is no longer the issue! Paul made that clear in Romans. then He went on to say shall we sin so that grace may abound? God forbid!

You are incorrect in saying that we have to wait until the end of our lives to see if our names are in the book. It was put there when God created the universe!

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I agree with that wiki definition. ( Iwas thinking of antinomianism-grace as a license to sin).

Grace is free, Paul made that clear in many of his epistles.

that does not mean we don't need to repent of our sins and make Him Lord. Again having a mind change but not a heart change does not save.

You are misquoting thie verse! The demons cannot know Jesus as Savior because there is no salvation for the fallen angels.

Just because salvation by grace is not offered does not mean they don't intellectually believe in Him as the literal savior. So we must conclude belief in the saviour does not save. This illustration is futher used by God in the book of james so I know I am not misquoting, it I provide several verses before, for context:


"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,
and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?
Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?"
James 2:14-20

Well read your OP and I cannot agree with it. You have a variation of maintaining your salvation by avoiding overt "bad sins" (or so it appears by your example)

OSAS is the biblical standard! Apostasy is one who was never said and fell away from the faith they "appeared to have".
2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Well reply to that thread and we can further talk about this, but I will ignore all OSAS dogma in this thread as it's off topic.

OUr position is what God has already declared us to be (perfect, justified, glorified, dead in Christ, hidden in Christ, seated in heavenly places)

Our experience is simply growing onto what God has declared us to already be! that is known as sanctification or progressive growing in holiness!

Yes but sactification is also through repentance. Justification uses repentance, and sanctification both. Again just read the 100 or more verses I bring to the table.

You have to remember that people do not go to hell because they are sinners. they go to hell because they rejected the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sins,

no, they actually go to hell for both of those. Because if they were not sinners, Christ would not need to die at all.

thus are left having ot pay the tab themselves! Sin is no longer the issue! Paul made that clear in Romans. then He went on to say shall we sin so that grace may abound? God forbid!

sin is no longer an issue for the regenerate, yes. But that does not mean we are not required to repent.

You are incorrect in saying that we have to wait until the end of our lives to see if our names are in the book. It was put there when God created the universe!

again any posts on apostacy or OSAS will be referred to the other thread.

 

[nolidad]

that does not mean we don't need to repent of our sins and make Him Lord. Again having a mind change but not a heart change does not save.

And I agree! All I have been telling you is that repentance is the mind change, and turning from sin is the heart change! Repentance is but step one in a multi step process.

sin is no longer an issue for the regenerate, yes. But that does not mean we are not required to repent.

What you call repent- the bible calls acknowledge (1 John 1:9) But it is true as gorw in the faith, there will be many things we come to learn that God calls sin and we must repent (change our mind) and agree with God that it is sin, and then we turn from it!

For th ebeliever it is not just a mental thing but a mental and heart thing! That is true repentance that leads to godliness!

If you would stop and see you would recognize we are in complete agreement abou this! I just am more specific than you.

 

[JLHargus]

deleted did not mean to post

 

[redleghunter]

One does not have to use the word dispensation if they really don't like that term, that is ok, but you must clearly see that there were ages in scripture. God told different commands to noah than He did to moses, than he did to abraham, than he did to joshua, than he did to david. Yes they were all following God with a pure heart, but they had different covenants and they also had different things to do to be saved.

There is only one covenant in which we are saved. The Covenant in the Blood of Christ which was from before the foundations of the Earth.

 

[createdtoworship]

And I agree! All I have been telling you is that repentance is the mind change, and turning from sin is the heart change! Repentance is but step one in a multi step process.



What you call repent- the bible calls acknowledge (1 John 1:9) But it is true as gorw in the faith, there will be many things we come to learn that God calls sin and we must repent (change our mind) and agree with God that it is sin, and then we turn from it!

For th ebeliever it is not just a mental thing but a mental and heart thing! That is true repentance that leads to godliness!

If you would stop and see you would recognize we are in complete agreement abou this! I just am more specific than you.

my point is this if we don't turn from sin at salvation then repentance is not accomplished.


“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth it not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. “

1 John 2:3-5


“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.”-1 John 2:29


“Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” -1 John 2:6-7


18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. -1 John 5:18


“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father in not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”-1 John 2:15-17

 

[createdtoworship]

There is only one covenant in which we are saved. The Covenant in the Blood of Christ which was from before the foundations of the Earth.

Christ was before the foundations of the earth, but the crucifixion did not happen till 33ad. So while yes there is one eternal salvation, there were many short term atonements. One was animal sacrifice, and adam and eve were basically saved by their works. One they ate the fruit they were tossed out. But the salvation by works changed to grace based on the weakness of our flesh. But that was not until four thousand years later, moses law and animal sacrifice was initiated as a temprorary atonement till christ would die.