There can be only one New Covenant, but it can have several phases. The critical thing is that the New Covenant was established at the Cross, through the shed blood of Christ. The Church is fully within the New Covenant, and future redeemed and restored Israel (Jer 31) will also be under the same New Covenant.The Covenant that Jesus was speaking of at The Last Supper is the New Covenant of His Blood. This Covenant is not the Covenant of Jer.31 or the Covenant of Heb.6. Both Jer.31 and Heb.6 are the same Covenant, and will be given to Israel and Judah at the 1000 year reign.
There is a New Covenant mentioned in Jer.31 by the name of New Covenant. We are all, Jew and Gentile alike, are now under the New Covenant of Christ's Blood. The New Covenant of Jer.31 and Heb.6 will be written in the minds and on the hearts of Israel and Judah when Jesus reigns in the millennium after the tribulation.There can be only one New Covenant, but it can have several phases. The critical thing is that the New Covenant was established at the Cross, through the shed blood of Christ. The Church is fully within the New Covenant, and future redeemed and restored Israel (Jer 31) will also be under the same New Covenant.
BABerean2, you are still willfully ignoring, and not only ignoring, but outright denying, what more scriptures than an be counted explicitly say, that in a coming day Israel will be restored, both to its ancient homeland and to its God. To deny that this will indeed happen is sheer, unvarnished, unbelief.
If Israel will not indeed be restored to its ancient homeland, and to its God, one of two things is unquestionably true.
either:
1. The Old Testament books of prophecy are not the actual words of God.
or:
2. God lied.
Neither of these choices is available to ANY Christian teacher. So we are FORCED to the conclusion that Israel will indeed be restored, both to its ancient homeland, and to its God. To deny this is to deny the FUNDAMENTALS of the Christian faith.
Again, you are substituting your interpretation of the meanings of a relatively small number of scriptures, which never actually say what you claim they mean, for the explicit statements of a great many more scriptures.
Amen!If there is one thing I have learned over the years, it is that illogic ends up its own logic.
At which point, their is no reasoning with such an individual.
Those passages he cited are not even talking about the same things.
But that is the very basis of a logic built out of illogic; of the "what it means to me" school of "interpretation."
Amen!
Which covenant is found in Romans 11:27, if it is not the New Covenant now in effect?
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood, which ratifies the New Covenant, my blood shed on behalf of many, so that they may have their sins forgiven. (CJB)
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
.
The promises given to Israel to restore their land to them physically in the new Kingdom wasn't part of the Mosaic covenant. It was prophecy given later after that covenant was already fully in effect, through such people as Ezekiel and Isaiah. Your argument here is a confusion of subjects on your part.
in geek-speak, this is kind of like saying, "Windows 10 supersedes Windows 8, therefore Firefox is no longer a valid browser."
The promises given to Israel to restore their land to them physically in the new Kingdom wasn't part of the Mosaic covenant. It was prophecy given later after that covenant was already fully in effect, through such people as Ezekiel and Isaiah. Your argument here is a confusion of subjects on your part.
in geek-speak, this is kind of like saying, "Windows 10 supersedes Windows 8, therefore Firefox is no longer a valid browser."
You did not answer the question...
Which covenant is found in Romans 11:27, if it is not the New Covenant now in effect?
.
I did answer it, and that answer was it doesn't matter when pertaining to the restoration of Israel, because it's a completely different subject.
That said, verse 26 tells you what covenant this is, when the Deliverer arises out of them, when all of Israel shall be saved, the same covenant we all live under now, and those verses will find their fulfillment at His return, as He stated He would not come again until the Jews say of Him, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" Mt 23:39.
Ironically, that's also the time cited in Zechariah 14, when He does return and plants his feet on the Mount of Olives (v.4), destroys the armies surrounding Jerusalem, and restores physical Israel to their promised state. That verse is fulfilled precisely when what you arguing against actually occurs.
As usual, BABerean2 had derailed this thread with his constant attack, and refuses to submit to explicitly stated scripture which says the very opposite to what he imagines is meant by the scriptures he constantly quotes.
If he had even one scripture which actually states what he imagines these scriptures mean, it would be different. But the language of scripture is very precise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. And it does not mean what it does not say.
I have noticed that the Dispensationalism sub-forum is filled with attacks and attackers, including everything from denouncing the dispensational interpretation of the scriptures to false allegations about the history of the doctrine. These have often included rules-breaking flames against both the doctrine and its alleged founders.
I do not see such attacks in the Covenant Theology sub-forum, although, as I rarely bother to read the threads there, I do not know that they never happen there.
But my question is, why this one-sided attack? Why do these people find it necessary to continually attack Dispensationalism?
I haven't seen it directly, but my guess would be that many people, myself included, understand dispensationalism as error, so they would want to oppose it. Attacking the errors of dispensationalism should be OK by the rules of CF; however attacking people is not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?