Moderators John317 Posted February 3, 2011 Moderators Posted February 3, 2011 ....God said that the 10 Commandments were the Covenant, and he meant it. You can obfuscate the definition all you want but that doesn't change the fact that the 'new' covenant is exactly the same as the 'old' covenant. I've shown conclusively-- both from linguistic considerations and from the context--- that the 10 commandments and the covenant were not one and the same thing. Anyone who cares to can refer to the several posts that deal with this question. Therefore it is not a fact that the New and Old Covenants are exactly the same. But if they are, you better begin to obey the laws regarding circumcision, the animals sacrifices, the ceremonial sabbaths, and the civil laws. Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 God is the same yesterday, today and forever. You quoted here something from a book you claim to reject. Your statement actually tells us that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." hebrews 13: 8. I find it ironic that you would say this despite the fact that you want people to believe that the same God who protected the Old Testament from being contaminated by Satan's servants allowed Satan to have his books become a large share of the New Testament. Your quote above is no evidence at all that the New and Old Covenants are the same. The change of a covenant does not change God. A covenant is an arrangement or agreement. God is free to do these things as He sees fit. Are you or any other human going to tell God He cannot abolish a covenant and establish another? Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 Unless you can prove to me that Jesus changed the Covenant by abrogating the 10 Commandments then I will continue to believe that the Covenant is the identifier of the members of the Kingdom of Heaven, along with holding to the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev.12:17). Of course Jesus did not abrogate the 10 commandments. But that is no evidence that Jesus ratified the Old Covenant at the cross. The New Covenant is also about the Ten Commandments. It is all about getting those commandments into our hearts and minds instead of on those stone tablets in the ark. That's where God really wants them. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 John, Thank you for taking the time to reply so thoroughly to my comments. Have you ever signed any kind of legal document, especially a document that mandates specific performance? Examples of this would be the sale of real property or a business. What was required of you when you signed these documents? First you had to prove that you are who you say you are; you must provide proof that you have the authority to act in the capacity of signer. Then you must make sure that all of the stipulations of the documents are clearly stated and understood by both parties. These stipulations are usually derived from negotiations, and then 'set in stone' by mutual agreement prior to the document signing. These stipulations as to price and/or performance are not law; but because they are in a contract they have the force of law behind them as to their completion. If one party does not fulfill their portion of the agreement then the other party can sue for damages because of the force of law behind the contract. Just because a contract has not gone through a negotiation does not mean that it does not have the force of law behind the contract. You have clearly stated your belief that the Covenant given to Israel (then the Kingdom of Heaven) was not Law; even in the face of God saying so in Deut. 4:13. And this is because you believe that the 10 Commandments are 'commands' and were not negotiated by both parties in coming to an agreement. In this I disagree, and here is why. The Covenant that God makes with the Kingdom of Heaven states that "I will be your God IF you will be my people". There is no doubt whatsoever that when God says He will do something He will do it. But God, being just, must abide by his own words, and that includes the word "IF". "IF" sets and establishes the conditions under-which His Kingdom must operate. The only way He can be the God/King of the Kingdom of Heaven is IF they prove that they are His people. If God makes them His people without their having to prove that they are His people by keeping His Commandments then He is going back on His word, and that is something that He cannot do and still be God. The first clause, "I will be your God" is the Covenant He wishes to make with His Kingdom; the second clause, "IF you will be my people" are the conditions under-which the first clause is activated. Therefore, the Covenant and the 10 Commandments are two parts of the same overall Covenant that God wanted to establish with the Kingdom of Heaven (then Israel) at Sinai. If this Covenant becomes a different i.e. 'new' Covenant then both parts of that Covenant/contract are made void by operation of Law, denying God His people, and denying the people their God. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 3, 2011 Moderators Posted February 3, 2011 You have clearly stated your belief that the Covenant given to Israel (then the Kingdom of Heaven) was not Law; even in the face of God saying so in Deut. 4:13. And this is because you believe that the 10 Commandments are 'commands' and were not negotiated by both parties in coming to an agreement. The Old Covenant was certainly legally binding. So I am not saying that the Covenant was not Law in that sense. I am simply saying that the Ten Commandment law that God gave to Israel was not one and the same as the Old Covenant. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the 10 Commandments were "negotiated by both parties." They were not negotiated, but the people merely accepted God's stipulations and promised to obey His commandments. Perhaps that is what you mean by negotiatng them. Could you explain what you believe Moses was doing in Exodus 24: 8? If that ceremony was not ratifying, or confirming, the Old Covenant, what was happening in that passage? What was the significance of the "blood of the covenant"? Compare it with the following: Jeremiah 34:18-19 And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts— [19] the officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 You have clearly stated your belief that the Covenant given to Israel (then the Kingdom of Heaven) was not Law; even in the face of God saying so in Deut. 4:13. And this is because you believe that the 10 Commandments are 'commands' and were not negotiated by both parties in coming to an agreement. The Old Covenant was certainly legally binding. So I am not saying that the Covenant was not Law in that sense. I am simply saying that the Ten Commandment law that God gave to Israel was not one and the same as the Old Covenant. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the 10 Commandments were "negotiated by both parties." They were not negotiated, but the people merely accepted God's stipulations and promised to obey His commandments. Perhaps that is what you mean by negotiatng them. Could you explain what you believe Moses was doing in Exodus 24: 8? If that ceremony was not ratifying, or confirming, the Old Covenant, what was happening in that passage? What was the significance of the "blood of the covenant"? Compare it with the following: Jeremiah 34:18-19 And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts— [19] the officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf. What I was talking about at first was that contracts of today are negotiated between two fairly equal parties. In the case of God and Israel there was no negotiation, God spoke and they had to obey if they wanted to be the people of God. This does not mean that this Covenant was not an agreement as is a contract, because it was. It may be that you are seeing the first Covenant as the 'old' covenant because the blood used was the blood of an animal as the sign of the covenant, and the second or 'new' covenant used the blood of Jesus Himself as the sign of the covenant. In that I agree. So, yes, when Moses threw the blood of the sacrifice onto the people he was signifying that it was blood that cleansed the people from their sins. This blood was merely a symbol and had no affect on the sins of the people. But as we both believe the blood of an animal cannot cleanse anyone from sin. That is because an animal such as a sheep or goat is not human, and only blood from a like species can act as a cleansing agent against sin. The 10 Commandments are (as stated in Jeremiah) the 'terms' (conditions) of the covenant, and the Covenant cannot be ratified without those terms being met. Israel violated 70 Sabbath years during the course of about 400 year of living in the Promised Land. When they had violated the 70th Sabbath God sent Nebuchadnezzar to lay waste to Jerusalem and to take those of the highborn and those of intelligence that would be of use to him back to Babylon, where they languished for 70 years. Israel had broken the Covenant with God and God had thrown them off the land, just as He had promised. In doing this God divorced Himself from Israel. This is the first 'fall' of Israel. When God brought Israel back from captivity He promised them that He would remarry them IF they obeyed His Commandments. This is seen in Dan.9:24. They were to become His righteous nation, at which time He would again marry them and take them back as if they were His virgin bride, and He would be their God and they would be His people. But there is that pesky "IF" again. The Covenant under which they would return was EXACTLY the same Covenant that they had broken. What God had promised them was that "IF" they obeyed Him He would write His Law upon their hearts and minds and they would no longer need the tables of Stone to remind them of their commitment to the Covenant. God gave Israel 490 years to accomplish His requirement to become His righteous nation. The end of that period was approaching so God sent His only Son to Israel to show them that they could (if the chose) still become His righteous nation by keeping the Covenant. And again they rejected the offer of marriage to their Bridegroom. They rejected the offer so forcefully that they even put the Bridegroom on a cross. This was the second 'fall' (Rev.14:6) The prophecy in Jeremiah concerning this Covenant was looking forward to the completion of the Kingdom in becoming righteous so that God could again marry His bride. THIS HAS NOT YET HAPPENED, and it will never happen to literal Israel because the time for this prophecy for them is over and will never be returned to them as a nation. It will, however, happen to the 'new' Kingdom of Heaven that arose without the aid of human hands in 1844, and that Kingdom will smash the image to the beast at it's feet, and that Kingdom will reign with Jesus Christ forever. It will do this because of the Covenant (neither old or new) because this Kingdom will "keep the commandments of God, and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (Rev.12:17). Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 4, 2011 Moderators Posted February 4, 2011 We're in general agreement on your last post. But I'm wondering what you think about the new covenant. What covenant did Jesus seal or ratify with his blood-- the Old Covenant or the New Covenant? Jeremiah mentions a New Covenant. Wasn't this the covenant that Christ sealed by the shedding of His blood? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 There is no new covenant or old covenant there is just the Covenant. There is no difference between the Covenant established by God as Sinai and the Covenant the Jesus Christ came to fulfill. The blood of Jesus was shed to purchase a Kingdom for God, just as the blood of the Passover Lamb purchased Israel out of Egypt. The Covenant/10 Commandments is only there for one reason, and that is to identify those that are in the Kingdom from those that are not, those that will obey their King no matter what. Obedience to the laws of the Covenant is the test of commitment just as was the instruction to Adam to not eat of the Tree of the Learning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God knowing the heart is one thing, but God being able to point to His people and show the universe that they obeyed His Commandments as proof of their Covenant with Him is quite another, and much more definable. It is for these people and these people ONLY that Jesus Christ shed the blood of the atonement. The Covenant is the Mark (seal) of the Living God just as disobedience to the Covenant is the Mark of the Beast. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 4, 2011 Moderators Posted February 4, 2011 You can only arrive at this conclusion by ignoring and misinterpreting a great deal of the Bible. Again, what is going on in Ex. 24: 8 if it is not sealing, or ratifying, the Old Covenant? Jeremiah 31: 31-33 speaks of the new covenant that God would make. Jesus then says that He is shedding His blood of the [new] covenant for the forgiveness of sin. Matt. 26: 28. It is obvious that the Messiah didn't come here to die in order to ratify the Old Covenant. You're denying a fundamental truth of Scripture, which is that the Old Covenant was sealed at Sinai, and a Covenant is not sealed twice. There's also the fact that you reject many passages of Scripture that speak directly of the New Covenant, such as those in Luke, 1 Cor. and Hebrews. Anyone can always deny a doctrine of Scripture if they deny the legitimacy of Scripture. But denying or rejecting Scripture does not change the fact that it is in the word of God, the standard of our faith and doctrine. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 You can only arrive at this conclusion by ignoring and misinterpreting a great deal of the Bible. Again, what is going on in Ex. 24: 8 if it is not sealing, or ratifying, the Old Covenant? Jeremiah 31: 31-33 speaks of the new covenant that God would make. Jesus then says that He is shedding His blood of the [new] covenant for the forgiveness of sin. Matt. 26: 28. It is obvious that the Messiah didn't come here to die in order to ratify the Old Covenant. You're denying a fundamental truth of Scripture, which is that the Old Covenant was sealed at Sinai, and a Covenant is not sealed twice. There's also the fact that you reject many passages of Scripture that speak directly of the New Covenant, such as those in Luke, 1 Cor. and Hebrews. Anyone can always deny a doctrine of Scripture if they deny the legitimacy of Scripture. But denying or rejecting Scripture does not change the fact that it is in the word of God, the standard of our faith and doctrine. Your statement about it being 'obvious' that Jesus did not die to ratify the 'OLD' covenant is lost on me. I have explained to you why I do not believe that there is an 'old' covenant and a 'new' covenant, but that there is only ONE covenant that has not changed since issued by God at Sinai. It is my belief that the Covenant is what identifies the members of the Kingdom of Heaven, and distinguishes them from those who are in the kingdom of the world. This comes from Revelation 12:17: "Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus." If it wasn't important for these people to keep the commandments as an identifier of those who are the 'rest of Her offspring' then God would not have made the statement of this verse. These commandments (including the 4th) are the Covenant. If the Covenant is done away with as the identifier of the Kingdom then there will be no way to know who is a member of the Kingdom of Heaven and who is not; and Rev.12:17 would be moot. Quote
Musicman1228 Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 What have you done with Rich, is he ok? Rich is well and very busy with our loan reconciliation work (SafeHaven Foundation), and with work for our ministry (Spirit of Truth). He has also found another couple of Adventist forums where he doesn't feel so frustrated in explaining his unusual positions on various issues. I'll let him know you are concerned about his welfare. I am sure he will appreciate it. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 10, 2011 Moderators Posted February 10, 2011 ...Your statement about it being 'obvious' that Jesus did not die to ratify the 'OLD' covenant is lost on me. I have explained to you why I do not believe that there is an 'old' covenant and a 'new' covenant, but that there is only ONE covenant that has not changed since issued by God at Sinai. Do you believe you are to obey all of God's commands and instructions that God made with Israel at Sinai? If you are correct in claiming that there is no "new covenant," please explain what Jeremiah 30: 31 is all about. Jeremiah 31:31-33 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, [32] not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. [33] But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Comapre Hebrews 8 and 10. You can believe what you do only if you reject the testimony of Jeremiah as well as the following Scriptures: Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. NOTE: virtually all of the ancient NT manuscripts read "new covenant" in Matt. 26: 28 and Mark 14: 24. Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1 Cor. 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. NOTE: The manuscript evidence is overwhelming that Jesus spoke of "the new covenant" and that the Bible supports the concept of an "old" and "new" covenant. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 10, 2011 Moderators Posted February 10, 2011 ...If it wasn't important for these people to keep the commandments as an identifier of those who are the 'rest of Her offspring' then God would not have made the statement of this verse. These commandments (including the 4th) are the Covenant. If the Covenant is done away with as the identifier of the Kingdom then there will be no way to know who is a member of the Kingdom of Heaven and who is not; and Rev.12:17 would be moot. The Bible's teaching that there is a new covenant and an old covenant doesn't mean it isn't important for people to keep the commandments of God. The New Covenant doesn't annul the moral law of God, the Ten Commandmetns. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Musicman1228 Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 John said, "The New Covenant doesn't annul the moral law of God, the Ten Commandmetns." Of course it does, John; the 'new' covenant as defined by your primary source for truth-Paul-is the covenant of grace, and by Paul's own words completely eliminates the 'old' covenant, 'that which is about to die' because it is 'faulty'. In other words Paul is saying that God made a mistake in giving the 'old' covenant to Israel at Sinai and now He will fix this mistake by making a 'new' covenant because the old one is a dead issue. Since when does God make mistakes like that? John said, "The Bible's teaching that there is a new covenant and an old covenant doesn't mean it isn't important for people to keep the commandments of God." Saying that 'the Bible' teaches 'something' is a cop-out and euphemism for retaining your ability to make it say anything you want. What part of 'the Bible' do you mean when you make this statement? Who is it that said what you are saying that 'the Bible' said? 'The Bible' is a generic statement that of itself is semantically null, making whatever follows it void of meaning. Don't just say to me that 'the Bible' teaches that having a 'new' covenant doesn't negate the old, show it with concrete citations. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted February 10, 2011 Moderators Posted February 10, 2011 The New Covenant doesn't annul the moral law of God, the Ten Commandmetns. Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 Of course it does, John; the 'new' covenant as defined by your primary source for truth-Paul-is the covenant of grace, and by Paul's own words completely eliminates the 'old' covenant, 'that which is about to die' because it is 'faulty'. In other words Paul is saying that God made a mistake in giving the 'old' covenant to Israel at Sinai and now He will fix this mistake by making a 'new' covenant because the old one is a dead issue. Since when does God make mistakes like that? God's grace doesn't eliminate the necessity of obedience to God. Read the following verses: Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? [2] By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Romans 6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Romans 2:1-11 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. [2] We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things. [3] Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? [4] Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [5] But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] He will render to each one according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God [is what counts]. 1 Cor. 9:20-22 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. [21] To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. [22] To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. Romans 13:8-10 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. [9] The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." [10] Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Galatians 5:16-24 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. [17] For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. [18] But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. [19] Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, [21] envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Where does Paul teach that God made a mistake by giving the Old Covenant to Israel? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 10, 2011 Moderators Posted February 10, 2011 ...Saying that 'the Bible' teaches 'something' is a cop-out and euphemism for retaining your ability to make it say anything you want. Do you deny that the Bible teaches there is an Old and a New Covenant? You can only deny it by rejecting the testimony of Jeremiah, Matthew, Luke, Mark, 1 Cor., and Hebrews. Originally Posted By: Musicman1228 What part of 'the Bible' do you mean when you make this statement? Who is it that said what you are saying that 'the Bible' said? 'The Bible' is a generic statement that of itself is semantically null, making whatever follows it void of meaning. Please quote what statement I made that you're talking about. Originally Posted By: Musicaman1228 Don't just say to me that 'the Bible' teaches that having a 'new' covenant doesn't negate the old, show it with concrete citations. I never said that the New Covenant doesn't negate the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is definitely obsolete. What I said is that the New Covenant doesn't annul the Ten Commandments. In other words, grace doesn't mean lawlessness or antinomianism. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.