Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Samie]

There are two aspects to this Samie.  One aspect has to do with God's disposition, and actions that God has taken, which Romans 5 deals with, and other places, like 2 Cor. 5.  However, John 3:16 is dealing with another aspect, which is our experience of reconcilation.  For us to experience reconciliation, we need to be born again, which is what Jesus described to Nicodemus.  Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again", and explained, when Nidocument asked him how, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoseover believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  When Nicodumus believed in Christ, he was born again, and the reconcilation was complete.

Reconcilation has two parts; there is the part of the one who has been offended (God), and the part of the one who has offended (man; Nicodemus, for example).  There is nothing that needs to be done on the God side of the equation, only on the man side.  On the man side, it is necessary to be born again.  When man is born again, as Paul puts it, he believes in the heart unto righteousness (Romans 10;10), then the man part of the equation happens.

When was man born again?

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

 

[pnattmbtc]

When was man born again?

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

 

So when Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again", Nicodemus was already born again?  This is your idea?

[Myron]

But God's Law of Moses does not require nor expect perfection.  It had provisions to deal with sin and to provide forgiveness through the sacrifices that foreshadowed Messiah's life-giving ministry. Of course, the people and the nation would sin again at times, just like you and I do.  But the Law provided for that too, for God provided the Israelites with abundant livestock for sacrifices, and day after day and year after year God's calendar provided repeated opportunities for repentant sinners to draw near to Him at the Sanctuary, where with the help of the priests who represented Messiah they could offer up the sacrifices that testified of Messiah.  I suppose, if you wanted to, you could paint that as a hopeless round of ceremonies.  But since it is the form of worship that God himself designed, I suspect that it actually meets the human and spiritual needs of the worshipers -- showing the seriousness of sin's consequences as well as the abundant grace provided by God. Of course, from our vantage point of ignorance we could venture to criticize and find fault with what God instituted. That would put us in the seat of the scoffers.  You may not have noticed, but when the author of Hebrews compares the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus to the temple services, he doesn't denigrate what God instituted through Moses, but rather shows how the ministry of Jesus is better than the good thing that God had instituted earlier.

Not only did God's covenant with Israel have provision to deal with sin, it also had provisions to deal with prolonged and persistent outright rebellion.  God promised to discipline Israel to turn their hearts back to Himself -- famine, sword, exile, etc.  And God also promised Israel that their descendants would return to the Land given to Abraham-- not because Israel would deserve it, but to glorify God's own name-- a return that has not fully happened yet. The return of Israel after exile is the setting in Jeremiah in which the "new covenant" promise is given-- a covenant that hasn't fully happened yet.

 

Ron,

You are still missing things that several of us have brought to your attention.  I don't know if you have not yet had time to read all of it or if you are just being stubborn.  I don't expect an immediate change of mind on these things because I expect you to do what most people won't but which it looks like you do at least sometimes, and that is take a good close, hard look at the texts and other materials provided and determine for yourself what is truth.  This takes time, not a single reading, but more often many, and a lot of cross referencing too.  It usually takes me days or weeks to come around, provided the texts are supplied as proof.  Since most church people simply expect me to capitulate to their point of view because they say so, and without a shred of proof required I get considered a hardheaded fool who cannot be convinced when it is the reverse that is true because they ignore the evidence provided.  These traits are all too common; it is part of what it means to be human.  We only lose these traits by education and you first have to be willing to be educated.  Most aren't. 

Paul, the writer of Hebrews says,

Chapter 10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. ² Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. ³ But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. ⁴ It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

⁵ Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
    but a body you prepared for me;
⁶ with burnt offerings and sin offerings
    you were not pleased.
⁷ Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
    I have come to do your will, my God.’”^[a]

⁸ First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. ⁹ Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. ¹⁰ And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

¹¹ Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹² But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³ and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. ¹⁴ For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

¹⁵ The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

¹⁶ “This is the covenant I will make with them
    after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
    and I will write them on their minds.”^[b]

¹⁷ Then he adds:

“Their sins and lawless acts
    I will remember no more.”^[c]

¹⁸ And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

There are many things in this passage it is clear that you either have never really read, or choose not to believe.  You are actively teaching that these old types and shadows were in and of themselves able to do the work they represented, that both the Old Testament, and the book of Hebrews agree with this point of view, but I can assure you that neither of them do. 

I am not going to apologize for long posts, although some of them can be broken up a little bit, not so much as the complainers desire, but I am not here to cater to spiritual ADHD.  I am also not going to stop quoting long passages of scripture, or even stop quoting it at all.  I learned long ago that if I don't actually post the scripture in my text almost no one will go read the scriptures I use to make my points.  If I include them in my text a significant portion of the readers will read those scriptures, where they would not otherwise.  For the same reason if I need to show something it its context I quote large sections of scripture without apology.  This is discussion that is not aimed at bottle babies (See Hebrews 5:11 - 6:3)  If those who are choking on the solid food need it broken down for them in specific ways I will do so, but I'm not going to break it down simply because the bottle babies don't want solid food and would not even attempt to chew it (important spiritual symbolism) even when they do try to eat it.  And as Paul says in that passage, even those who should be on solid food all too often have to have the milk taught to them again because it has been taught and learned so poorly.  This necessarily increases the length of posts needed to get an idea across.

The context of these underlined passages in chapter 10 is very important, and shows Paul very clearly comparing and contrasting the two covenants, one effective and one not.  Furthermore, he makes it very clear that when sins were forgiven in the Old Testament it was not because of their adherence to Old Covenant law, the types and shadows of which could not forgive one sin, ever, but because of the faith that brought them under the New Covenant, even though it had not yet been revealed.  Yet it is you, yourself who pointed out to me that the New Covenant had already been given in Exodus 34.  It had not, but that event on the mountain top is a foreshadowing in type of the eventual giving of the New Covenant,  as is the reconfirmation of the covenant ceremony given to Israel after Moses read them the book of Deuteronomy (literally second law) just before they entered the Promised Land.  When you first mentioned the giving of the New Covenant in the days of the Exodus I thought you had missed this one, but I seem to recall you mentioning it in this context in a later post.  These were only types foreshadowing the New Covenant, they were not the giving of the New Covenant itself.

In verse 8 Paul places the words of several Old Testament writers in Jesus' mouth, saying this is what he said first in his ministry of sacrifice.  “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law."  This statement appears multiple times in various ways in the Old Testament, yet you ignore them. 

The first example I will give is one that you can legitimately argue against saying, these sacrifices were meaningless and uses less in and of themselves.  Yet I bring it as the first such instance in scripture because it does show that there is something more that God requires from us than simply to make these useless sacrifices.  In this instance God had finally commanded the judgment on the Amalekites for a sin they had committed several hundred years before early in the Exodus, even before they reached Sinai.  Exodus is a bit short on explanation as to the reasons for this war, but does make it clear that the Amalekites were attacking the rear of the Israelite column.  The book of Jasher fills in more detail telling us that this band of Amalekites was specifically holding back behind the column to victimize the weak and the sick or others who fell behind for any other reason of misfortune.  This is the battle in which Moses held up his arms, and so long as his arms with his rod in his hand remained raised battle went well for Israel but when he tired and weakened the battle turned against them.  After that battle God declared a judgment against them that demanded the utter destruction of the entire nation.  Now, in the reign of Saul the grace period granted to the Amalekites had ended and they had not repented so God ordered Saul to execute this judgment and gave him specific instructions how it was to be done. 

These people had been declared "charam" a Hebrew term that is generally translated devoted to destruction, but this term does more to show translator misunderstanding and bias than anything else.  Something that is "charam" is devoted entirely and solely to God's use.  Thus if it was perishable (flesh, wood, cloth) it was to be utterly destroyed.  Essentially, a burnt offering to God.  If it was imperishable it was to be placed in the temple treasury.  Saul and his soldiers got greedy and took the flocks and herds of the Amalekites as war booty and saved the life of the king, Agag.  Samuel was understandably displeased, but God was even more so.  Upon questioning, Saul quickly came up with a plausible lie -- "We brought these things back for sacrifice."  Fine, but there is a problem with that.  These things already belonged exclusively to God and you cannot offer them to him as your "gifts."  So this story does not apply precisely as the other texts, but it does begin to show a great deal of misunderstanding about these things and that there is much more to this concept of sacrifice.  It is the actual, real sacrifice that matters, not the types or shadow, and Samuel's response to Saul does give us a simple definition of the true sacrifice God demands.

But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.  1 Samuel 15:22

 Obedience and hearing (which includes obedience) are the true sacrifices for sin.  Samuel does not say this but some of the texts we will examine later do bring this in as a part of it.  Psalm 40 covers this a bit more fully.

⁴ Blessed is the one
    who trusts in the Lord,
who does not look to the proud,
    to those who turn aside to false gods.^[b]
5 Many, Lord my God,
    are the wonders you have done,
    the things you planned for us.
None can compare with you;
    were I to speak and tell of your deeds,
    they would be too many to declare.

⁶ Sacrifice and offering you did not desire—
    but my ears you have opened^[c]—
    burnt offerings and sin offerings^[d] you did not require.
⁷ Then I said, “Here I am, I have come—
    it is written about me in the scroll.^[e]
8 I desire to do your will, my God;
    your law is within my heart.”

 The definition of the sacrifice here begins in verse 4, or perhaps more accurately the explanation of the definition and the definition itself is verse 6.  Those who are proud are also defined here as those who faced with the word of God will not admit an error, but instead choose to persist in the believing their false doctrine.  If the doctrine is false, it is the worship of a false god.  I have yet to run into an Adventist (and very few other Christians) who get this at all and they love their idols.  God does not ask of us a sacrifice of bulls and goats, or a sacrifice of gold and silver.  The only sacrifice he really cares about is the ability to listen, the willingness to hear, and furthermore if we do not have these things it is because HE has not given us that ability.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word shema means both to hear and to obey.  Because these definitions are juxtaposed in this way it means the concepts cannot be separated if the word shema is used.  I have not done the careful word study but to my knowledge the Hebrew texts use only the shema and its derivatives for either hearing or obedience.  If that is true it means, in every case both concepts are being referred to.  You cannot obey without first hearing, and if you do not obey you have not actually heard.  So when God opens our ears he also gives us the ability to obey the word we hear from him.  And as a result the promise of verse 8 is fulfilled in us, we desire to do his will because his law is written in our hearts.  Is there a matter where you have no desire to do his will?  His law regarding that matter is not written in your heart, and if it is not written there you have not really heard it, at least not from God.  That also is a key difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  Under the Old Covenant the people heard everything from Moses or later from other prophets.  They may have known it to be the word of God but because they refused to hear it directly from God and instead required a prophet to tell them what God said, they really had not heard at all and no change was made in their hearts.

⁷ Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean;
    wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
⁸ Let me hear joy and gladness;
    let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
⁹ Hide your face from my sins
    and blot out all my iniquity.

¹⁰ Create in me a pure heart, O God,
    and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
¹¹ Do not cast me from your presence
    or take your Holy Spirit from me.
¹² Restore to me the joy of your salvation
    and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.

¹³ Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
    so that sinners will turn back to you.
¹⁴ Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
    you who are God my Savior,
    and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
¹⁵ Open my lips, Lord,
    and my mouth will declare your praise.
¹⁶ You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
    you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
¹⁷ My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
    a broken and contrite heart
    you, God, will not despise.

This is from Psalm 51.  Once again there is a lot in this one that few people understand or even care to try to understand.  I had difficulty deciding where I wanted to start this quote.  I don't need it all, but I did need to demonstrate that David was already giving the sacrifice required by God as defined by the previously cited text.  He was showing a willingness to hear and to obey and was asking God to write his law on his heart.  He was fully submitted to God.  The definition of sacrifice given here is basically the same as the one given in the previous cite.

More importantly to the continuation of our current discussion is the background in which this Psalm was written.  David wrote this Psalm after Nathan came to him to receive the judgment from David for his sins with Bathsheba against Uriah the Hittite, her husband.  I presume you remember this story so I won't go into any detail about it.  If you need the details look them up.  There were two sins we clearly see to be judged here, but in the story Nathan told David to trick him into passing judgment upon himself the sin was theft not murder or adultery.  This story gets us into the primary point I wish to make in comment upon your post, but all this other background is necessary first. 

Part of the reason for Nathan changing the focus of the matter from adultery and murder to theft is because under the Old Covenant there is only one judgment for these sins:  Death.  This is not so much a matter of this being the only way in which to deal with these things; it is more a matter of recognizing one or both of two things apply in cases requiring capital punishment.  First, there is no possible way that a human can provide the restitution required by the law or second, there are issues involved that are simply too complex for finite man to sort through and judge; therefore because one or both of these conditions is met upon conviction of such a sin under the Old Covenant the matter is to be deferred to the Great White Throne judgment for God to sort out and assign a restitution.  This matter had to be judged according to the New Covenant.  New Covenant death, the second death, can easily be proven from scripture to be repentance (by simplistic definition) or full and total devotion to God (the concept of charem), but what does that really mean?  Few people have a clue and in our mortal bodies we cannot achieve that devotion anyway. 

The mechanism by which God moved the matter over into New Covenant choice of law was the principle of James 2:10.  This is easy to show where theft is concerned.  If you have other gods which you place ahead of the God of heaven in your allegiances you have stolen an honor that belongs to God alone.  If you take his name in vain (a concept few even begin to understand) you have stolen authority that God did not give you.  This means you are acting in his name, which requires a number of prerequisites, not the least of which is you must know him and be known by him.  Few who claim to know him actually do, nor are they willing to learn his laws, which define his character and learn his ways which the law also teaches.  Until the New Covenant is fulfilled in me completely I do not know him well enough to qualify for the adoption and do not have the authority to act in his name in all matters.  If I make a graven (carved) image of him I have chipped away little bits and pieces of the true image of God until I have a god that is to my liking.  If I refuse a doctrine God teaches  and set up my own understanding instead I have stolen a little bit of what God is, rejected that and try to steal that understanding from everyone I teach and thus have broken the first two commandments as well as the theft commandment.  If I do not keep the Sabbath I steal for my own purposes time God has set aside for me to learn of him and do his works in the world.  If I do not honor my parents I steal something God had promised to them. 

If I commit adultery I have stolen a knowledge (trust) that belong only between those two people.  This is not simply about sexual intercourse.  The Hebrew word in both cases is yada, to know.  This is not bad or prudish translating or choice of words.  There is an important concept here, and this commandment deals with how any knowledge is to be shared.  Some things are simply not meant for public knowledge and is to be shared only by those people involved.  Gossip more often falls under the purview of this commandment rather than the false witness commandment because gossip very often is true; however, it is information you or I either do not need to know or are obtaining from a source not authorized to share it.  We are stealing a right that belongs only to those particular people, and that is theft.

I can do the same thing with the remaining commandments but you get the picture.  The rest of Moses law all falls under the purview of one of these 10 and Jesus summarized even further saying all fall under the Shema -- hear O Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) -- or the neighbor law (Leviticus 19:18).  The point is, by this principle God transferred the matter both to a different statute and to the New Covenant which allowed him to define death as the second death, not the first death.  There are some interesting principles shown by this which we will not get into any further because they are not the point of this discussion. 

Continuing with understanding sacrifice under both covenants we find,

The Lord detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him.  Proverbs 15:8

The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable— how much more so when brought with evil intent!   Proverbs 21:27

It does not matter if the sacrifice is done "properly" according to the Old Covenant law or not, if the person bringing the sacrifice was continuing his sin the sacrifice could not forgive it and God would not accept it because it was detestable to him (this also means that all sacrifices ended up being judged under the New Covenant because God looks at the heart before deciding to accept the offering.)  Several of the prophets speak of the people of Israel and Judah going out, intentionally sinning saying, "I will take my sacrifice to the temple later and it will all be good."  In one of these that I have seen only twice and have not been able to locate again for the last several years (another reason I need to read the Bible straight through once in awhile) God tells such people they are guilty of the blood of the sacrifice they bring.  This problem persisted in the New Testament church and is why Paul ended his discussion of Law and grace in Romans 5 by saying, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? ² By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"  Romans 6:1,2.  It is bad enough when we bring a sacrifice before God when we have not repented for the sins that we are claiming to be covered.  It is considerably worse when we intentionally sin because when we bring the sacrifice "God has to forgive our sin."  This is sorcery, plain and simple.  It is no different than the sorcery that is the so-called believers prayer or prayer of faith.  (The Adventist preacher Glenn Coon called it the ABCs of prayer.)  The idea is that if you follow this formula, ask, believe and claim, God has no choice but to answer your prayer in the affirmative.  This is nothing more than spell casting and sorcery, and is just as detestable to God.  Glenn Coon reduced his sin by stressing that the "ask"  had to be something God promised in scripture, but the spell casting formula still remained, and ignores the problem of me asking for selfish reasons.  The promise in John 15:16 is referring to what God will do for us in the Tabernacles age after his Law has been fully written on our hearts and everything we ask will be according to his will, not our desires.

²² “Yet you have not called on me, Jacob,
    you have not wearied yourselves for^[c] me, Israel.
²³ You have not brought me sheep for burnt offerings,
    nor honored me with your sacrifices.
I have not burdened you with grain offerings
    nor wearied you with demands for incense.
²⁴ You have not bought any fragrant calamus for me,
    or lavished on me the fat of your sacrifices.
But you have burdened me with your sins
    and wearied me with your offenses.

²⁵ “I, even I, am he who blots out
    your transgressions, for my own sake,
    and remembers your sins no more.
²⁶ Review the past for me,
    let us argue the matter together;
    state the case for your innocence.
²⁷ Your first father sinned;
    those I sent to teach you rebelled against me.
²⁸ So I disgraced the dignitaries of your temple;
    I consigned Jacob to destruction^[d]

The people to whom this is addressed would not have admitted it.  As far as they were concerned the offerings they were making were to God and were doing a very good job of living his law.  But because they were doing things their own way they were not actually bringing them to God.  More importantly God tells us that it was not the sacrifice but He himself who blots out their sins, and he did it for his own sake, not theirs.  He also stated that Adam sinned, so God sent others to teach them his ways and in nearly every case they rebelled against him, teaching their own things as fact and ignoring what he says about himself.

“These are the ones I look on with favor:
    those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
    and who tremble at my word.
³ But whoever sacrifices a bull
    is like one who kills a person,
and whoever offers a lamb
    is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
    is like one who presents pig’s blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense
    is like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
    and they delight in their abominations;
⁴ so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
    and will bring on them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
    when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
    and chose what displeases me.”

Isaiah 66

Again we see further refinements to the proper definition of sacrifice and the heart condition that determines whether a sacrifice is acceptable or detestable in the eyes of God.  The sacrifices themselves had no power to save , and even the sacrifice made by the truly repentant person is nothing more than useless killing.  The word is whoever, not whoever does not come with the right heart attitude. Nor is the matter that this chapter is supposedly speaking of life in the earth made new.  Nor is it that under the New Covenant the sacrifices of the Old Covenant are done away with.  The New Covenant had not been done away with and the things the priests did with the blood of the sacrifice are things we must do with the blood of Jesus in the reality rather than as types (Something that Samie and pnatt are entirely missing in their discussion back and forth.)

Hosea brings yet another aspect into this.

⁵ Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets,
    I killed you with the words of my mouth—
    then my judgments go forth like the sun.
⁶ For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
    and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.  Hosea 6

The words of God through the prophets was the priest's knife that cut the sacrifice and prepared it to be cooked on the altar.  The people the prophet spoke to were the sacrifice.  There are many aspects to mercy that are very important, and which I have discussed a little in other posts here and in great detail on other forums.  For our purposes here we can simply call it forgiveness, although there is more to it, and the forgiveness here is God's forgiveness of those who come to him broken and finally ready to hear his word for themselves instead of through the prophet, and thus have his words written on their hearts so that obedience comes naturally from their own hearts.

Continuing the idea that we are the true sacrifice acceptable to God if we approach him with open ears, willing to hear his word and obey, Paul says,

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.  Romans 12:1

This is not to be a mindless thing that God does in us without understanding on our parts.  The word that is here translated as "true and proper" is logizamai.  In simple terms it can be thought of as meaning logical or well thought out.  Of course, as with many of these advanced concepts contained in Paul's writings we are taking an overly simplistic approach of we limit our understanding of the terms in this way.  For our purposes here the simplistic answer is adequate, but we must always be aware that there is more to these things and we should be seeking a deeper understanding as this verse implies.  We are to know eventually know and understand why and how these things work, and how the things we do every day in the service of God are living out the types and shadows of the Old Covenant system.  And we are to knowingly and intentionally live out that work every day of our service to God.  Only this makes us a truly acceptable sacrifice.

Finally before moving on we see Peter's definition of not only the sacrifices but the New Covenant temple and its priesthood. 

⁴ As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— ⁵ you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 2

Adventist theology has serious problems simply because it ignores the implications of this statement.  We are the New Covenant temple.  Each one of us is a living stone in that temple and we are all the priests of that temple under the authority of our high priest, offering sacrifices that are acceptable to God.  Just as in the Old Covenant temple some of these sacrifices had to be offered by the priests on behalf of the people, who were themselves usually unaware of the daily practices being performed on their behalf.  Other sacrifices had to be brought by the people on their own behalf and ministered by the priests.  It is our job as priests of the New Covenant to know just how the Old Covenant types and shadows manifest themselves in the spiritual reality and how we are to take the blood of Jesus and minister it on behalf of the people, whether they know what we are doing or not, and to teach the people how they must bring the blood of Jesus to us so that we can minister it on their behalf.  Both works are necessary; salvation cannot be worked with out them, even though it is entirely the work of Jesus that is being done in both cases. Those who refuse to study the law cannot know these things, then spend hours talking past each other from points of ignorance.  This will not do for the priest of the New Covenant, and will not serve the people God sends to us for ministry.  We must know the process that is defined for us in these types and shadows.  If we refuse to go to the types and shadows Paul and the other apostles studied and knew so well how can we really know what they were talking about when they told us how Jesus fulfilled them, and how we, as his subordinate priests and younger brothers are to continue this work?

 

 

This is a good place to stop for now.  I did not expect the setting of this groundwork to take so much space, or take so much time, but it also does not surprise me much.  From what I have written here you should be able to see that it cannot work as you claimed because the blood of these beasts was not the sacrifice that saved these people under the Old Covenant.  Yet since you study the Old Covenant law you can already see how in theory it is possible for this law to provide justification.  This puts you well ahead of anyone else in this discussion.  Paul did speak of this in Romans 7:10.  You say the law was a law of life.  In this Ezekiel would seem to agree with you, but Paul does not.  In this you take too simplistic of a view.  Ezekiel does say something to the effect of the law bringing life.  I do not recall where and it is not coming up immediately in my search, but then neither did Romans 7:10.  I had to go read the chapter to fine the verse I knew was there.  But here Paul says, ¹⁰ I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. ¹¹ For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. Because you already have the understanding of the law which you have you should be able to easily understand my next post, which will examine both aspects of how this works, but primarily how this law you claim brings life actually does bring death and make the giving of life through the law impossible.  I doubt anyone else here will understand a word of it, but I will be very pleasantly surprised if they can follow our discussion.  All are welcome to read and comment if they wish.  That's why this is discussed publicly.

I don't know when I will get back to this.  I've worked on this one post most of two days.  These things take time to prepare even though I can discuss most of this material off the top of my head when discussing it with neophytes and milk drinkers.  Once you start feeding those who are on solid food the standard of proof goes way up, and deeper study and preparation becomes necessary.  Every text needs to be reexamined and studied to make certain I am using it correctly and it actually says what I think I remember it says, and of course through this process I see more and learn things I have never before understood about the subject.  I have a life and other things I need to do, many of them also God's work, so I don't know when I will get back to this but I should probably have another post ready before the week is up.  I will not be surprised if it takes two more posts to finish discussing this matter but perhaps just one more will cover it.

In the mean time, for a different perspective on this I suggest those who are interested listen to Stephen Jones sermon from this year's Pentecost conference.  I present this as a different perspective on some of the same material, but direct your questions about it to me.  Unlike people hear who quickly distance themselves from the words of others they present as proof of their positions Stephen is not my proof.  In most, but not all cases God made me learn these things on my own from scripture and from living example before he allowed me to read any of Stephen's books or listen to any of his recordings on the matters I teach.  For the most part Stephen has only been the double witness of things God already taught me.  There are a few things I have learned from Stephen, but most of these I am able to teach myself nearly as effectively as he does  Nor do I agree with him on all matters even though I understand his position on most of the issues where he and I do not agree.  Thus I can easily answer questions this material can generate and unlike others who have presented such materials as proof of their beliefs I welcome those questions and can defend the beliefs as my own.  I will not tell you to go ask Stephen Jones to defend my belief, although this suggestion would make much more sense than, "Go ask Waggoner," because Stephen Jones is very much alive, and Waggoner has been dead for 99 years.

Stephen's referenced sermon can be found at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/6312676/Pentecost Meeting 5-24-15 - Dr. Stephen Jones part 1.mp3

Both sermons from this conference can be found at http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/audio/pentecost-2015/

All his audio teachings can be found at  http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/audio/

A good overview of the two covenants can be found in his booklet The Two Covenants found on-line at http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/the-two-covenants/

Two books by him which cover this material in much greater detail, and which I have yet to read in their entirety are:

Hebrews: Immigrating from the Old Covenant to the New:  http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/hebrews-immigrating-from-the-old-covenant-to-the-new/

The Book of Galatians:  http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/the-book-of-galatians/

Just because I have not read much from these last two books does not mean I cannot answer questions concerning Dr. Jones' interpretation of scripture in them.  He and I hold very similar views on most things and I can answer nearly any question anyone may have concerning his interpretation.

[pnattmbtc]

 These traits are all too common; it is part of what it means to be human.  We only lose these traits by education and you first have to be willing to be educated.  Most aren't. 

True dat. 

[Samie]

  On 8/15/2015, 6:16:27, Samie said:

How were we reconciled to God?

^KJV Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

 

When Nicodumus believed in Christ, he was born again, and the reconcilation was complete.

 

When was man born again?

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

 

So when Jesus said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again", Nicodemus was already born again?  This is your idea?

No. As the Bible puts it, our being born again is God's work FOR man through Christ via His resurrection.  When Nicodemus visited the Lord, He had not yet died, so He was not resurrected yet.

[pnattmbtc]

No. As the Bible puts it, our being born again is God's work FOR man through Christ via His resurrection.  When Nicodemus visited the Lord, He had not yet died, so He was not resurrected yet.

So what Jesus said to Nicodemus doesn't apply to us, since for us Jesus has already died, but for Nicodemus he hadn't yet died.  Why did Jesus say, "For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?"  As I'm understanding you, if what you were saying were true, would already have everlasting life, hence no need to believe. 

[Samie]

So what Jesus said to Nicodemus doesn't apply to us, since for us Jesus has already died, but for Nicodemus he hadn't yet died. 

What Jesus said to Nicodemus applies to all. The life and death of Jesus and hence His resurrection is for all. Like us, Nicodemus was born again when our Lord was resurrected.  Had Jesus not died and lived again, then we all have no hope of eternal life.

Why did Jesus say, "For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life?"  As I'm understanding you, if what you were saying were true, would already have everlasting life, hence no need to believe. 

I have already explained this elsewhere. The true believers are the overcomers of evil with good.

^KJV John 16:33  . . .  I have overcome the world

 

^KJV John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

^KJV 1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

^NKJ Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

All were given the chance of enjoying eternal life; all were written in the Book of Life. But only those who have overcome evil with good will enjoy eternal life with the Father and the Son because only their names will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

[pnattmbtc]

What Jesus said to Nicodemus applies to all. The life and death of Jesus and hence His resurrection is for all. Like us, Nicodemus was born again when our Lord was resurrected.  Had Jesus not died and lived again, then we all have no hope of eternal life.

I have already explained this elsewhere. The true believers are the overcomers of evil with good.

^KJV John 16:33  . . .  I have overcome the world

 

^KJV John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

 

^KJV 1 John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

 

^NKJ Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

All were given the chance of enjoying eternal life; all were written in the Book of Life. But only those who have overcome evil with good will enjoy eternal life with the Father and the Son because only their names will not be blotted out from the Book of Life.

I don't see how this addresses the issue.  Jesus said to Nicodemus that he had to be born again, which, as I understand you, happened automatically when Jesus Christ was resurrected.  That is what you said, isn't it?  But if this were the case, why would Jesus tell Nicodumus that he needed to believe in Him (i.e. Nicodemus had to believe in Jesus Christ) in order to be born again?  It doesn't make sense that Jesus Christ would tell Nicodumus he had to do smoething (believe in Jesus Christ) in order to be born again if, in reality, he didn't need to do anything.

[Samie]

I don't see how this addresses the issue.  Jesus said to Nicodemus that he had to be born again, which, as I understand you, happened automatically when Jesus Christ was resurrected.  That is what you said, isn't it?

That people are born again through the resurrection of our Lord is what Scripture says:

^NAS 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

 

 

But if this were the case, why would Jesus tell Nicodumus that he needed to believe in Him (i.e. Nicodemus had to believe in Jesus Christ) in order to be born again?  It doesn't make sense that Jesus Christ would tell Nicodumus he had to do smoething (believe in Jesus Christ) in order to be born again if, in reality, he didn't need to do anything.

Where in John 3 did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he had to believe to be born again?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Samie

[pnattmbtc]

In John 3.  First Jesus told Nicodemus he had to be born again, in the beginning of the chapter, and then in vs. 16 he explained how.  Surely you're familiar with this verse?  For God so loved the world that He gave His only forgotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Nicodemus thought he could gain eternal life by his works, but Jesus explained that he needed to be born again; i.e. a regeneration, a transformation, a conversion, however you want to call it.  This is justification by faith.  This is how one is converted.

How do you think a person is converted, if not by believing in Christ?  Do you not think that conversion is necessary?

[Samie]

Please answer my question where in John 3 did Jesus tell Nicodemus that to be born again he must believe.  Sure He told him that to be born again is necessary to enter into the kingdom of God.  Sure He told him that by believing people shall not perish but have everlasting life.  But where in John 3 did He tell NIcodemus that it is by believing that people are born again?

[pnattmbtc]

Please answer my question where in John 3 did Jesus tell Nicodemus that to be born again he must believe.  Sure He told him that to be born again is necessary to enter into the kingdom of God.  Sure He told him that by believing people shall not perish but have everlasting life.  But where in John 3 did He tell NIcodemus that it is by believing that people are born again?

 John 3.
1.Nicodemus sees Jesus.
2.Nicodemus starts to talk, Jesus interupts, and tells him he must be born again.
3.Nicodemus is confused and asks how.
4.Jesus answers his question as to how in verse 16.

[pnattmbtc]

Romans 10:10 says the same thing, by the way:

 

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. NIV

[Samie]

I have shown you a verse that says directly that we were born again through the resurrection of our Lord. But you simply give me a narration of John 3, combined verses together and concluded that Jesus told Nicodemus that by believing he is born again.  Sorry, but I don't think that is acceptable for me.

[pnattmbtc]

I have shown you a verse that says directly that we were born again through the resurrection of our Lord. But you simply give me a narration of John 3, combined verses together and concluded that Jesus told Nicodemus that by believing he is born again.  Sorry, but I don't think that is acceptable for me.

??? What do you think is happening in John 3?  This isn't an idea unique to me.  As far as I'm aware, you can look at any commentary and you will see the same thing.  This isn't even a point that is controverted.

Regarding the verse that we are born again through the resurrection of our Lord, of course this is the case because the Gospel involves the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and one is born again by believing the Gospel.  Everything fits here:

Man is out of harmony with God.  Something needs to be done.  God sends His Son who lived, died and was resurrected.  As a result of this, the entire human race is benefited, which you have been emphasizing, and I agree with this.  However what I'm not seeing is there is also an individual component, which involves (these are all synonymous)

1.Being converted/regenerated/transformed.

2.Being born again.

3.Being justified by faith.

4.Being pardoned/having one's sins forgiven.

5.Entering into the New Covenant. 

The only thing I've seen you talk about that has an individual component is overcoming evil with good.  How do you think this happens?  Does it involve items 1-5?  In particular, does it involve faith?  Can one overcome evil with good without faith?  Can one *not* overcome evil with good if one has genuine faith?

[Samie]

You seem not to be reading what I am writing.  All of the 5 items are all God's work FOR man.  After the 5 items you enumerated, only then can we overcome evil with good. The 5 items belong to the Past Tense of Salvation. Overcoming is under the Present Tense of Salvation.

[pnattmbtc]

You seem not to be reading what I am writing.  All of the 5 items are all God's work FOR man.  After the 5 items you enumerated, only then can we overcome evil with good. The 5 items belong to the Past Tense of Salvation. Overcoming is under the Present Tense of Salvation.

I'm reading what you write, but it's difficult to understand, because it's not something I've ever come across (as far as I'm aware, you're the only one who holds these ideas; that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but it does make them difficult to understand), and it's also difficult to understand because there are many texts where these ideas appear to be clearly something an individual does.  To name just a few:

Here is my understanding of John 3:16.

1.Jesus told Nicodemus he needed to be converted.

2.Jesus explained to Nicodemus how to be converted, which is verse 16.

 

Here is my understanding of Romans 10:10

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

1.When you believe with your heart you are justified.

I don't know how else to say this.  How can this be read as a past time thing?  I don't know how else to interpret, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified", other than what it says, and I don't see how this could be construed as something which happened in the past (other then in the past for each individual, when he believed.

Luke 18:9-14, the parable of the publican and the pharisee.

The public prayed, "God be merciful to me a sinner" and went away justified.

I'll stop here, as 3 is a nice number, but there are many, many of these.

Finally, how can you possibly think that being converted is something which happened some time in the past before we were born?  Being converted means to change how you think about something.  That absolutely cannot be something which happens outside of yourself, just from the standpoint of what words mean.

[Samie]

Without the life, death and resurrection of our Lord, we all - Adam & Eve and all their descendants - are doomed, spiritually dead, in God's sight. That is why the Father sent the Bread of Life to this world to give it life (John 6:33), because the world is dead, spiritually dead.  Unless first made alive, the spiritually dead cannot do any spiritual act, in the same manner that the physically dead cannot do any physical act.  It is sin that caused spiritual death, because sin separates man from God, and apart from Him Who is our Life, we all are spiritually dead.  The spiritually dead need to be attached to Him and only then can the spiritually dead do spiritual acts like believing, deciding to be baptized, repenting, etc.

It was on the cross where we were attached to the Body our Lord. The attaching was done by God through Christ, the Head of the body. When He died, we were with Him; when He rose from the grave, we were resurrected together with Him, born again into a living hope, converted from sinner to saint, justified by the faith of the Son of God, sanctified through the offering of His body on the cross, reconciled to God, pardoned or forgiven from all sin - past, present, future, empowered to overcome evil with good being attached to Him Who is our Strength, given faith so that we can please Him Who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure, ushered into the New Covenant and made members of the family of God.  All this is all by grace, not an iota of our participation. This is the Past Tense of Salvation, the first dimension of the Gospel.

Now that we are spiritually alive, we can do spiritual acts like believing, repenting, etc.  This is all overcoming evil with good.  Believing is overcoming the evil of unbelief, repenting is overcoming the evil of being impenitent, etc.  We do this in the Present Tense of Salvation, the 2nd dimension of the Gospel.  We can because we are attached to Him Who is our Strength for overcoming evil with good.  It is not then a question of inability but one of refusal, if one does not overcome evil with good.

[pnattmbtc]

I'll respond later when I can, might not be until tomorrow.  I agree with much of the general concept, but not with the specifics.  The difference might turn out to be semantic.  I'll write something out about how I see things, and you can let me know if you disagree.

Thanks for writing your explanation.  That helped understand what you want to say.

Just a quick comment, I would say "Now that we are *physically* alive, we can do spiritual acts like believing, repenting, etc."  To the death of Christ, we owe even our earthly life.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie, where I think we agree is that there is an objective gospel, wherein everyone benefits, and a subjective gopsel.  How I would put things is that to the death of Christ we owe even our earthly life, so if it were not for the sacrifice of Christ (by which I mean His life, death and resurrection, since His entire life was a sacrafice) we would not even be alive physically.  So the very ability we have to make decisions, even decisions against Christ, are due to God's generosity.  We owe everything to God.

Another area where we agree is that God takes the initiative in our salvation, and I would emphasize that to be lost involves actually resisting and fighting against God's initiative.  So, we could say, God has saved us (corporately in Christ) and now He tells us about that event (He tells us about the objective Gospel), and if we do not resist the Gospel, we will respond positively, and be saved experientially (subjectively).  Being "saved experientially" means if we died, we would go to heaven.

So we have some common ground here.  Where there is some disagreement is in regards to their being individual actions by believers, which is a bit perplexing, since there are hundreds of statements to this effect.  I've mentioned three of them, Luke 18, Romans 10, and John 3, so will be interested to see your response to these texts.  In general terms, there is such a thing as being converted, and I think it is this point I would most like to discuss with you.

There's a verse which says something like "can an Ethopian change his skin or a leopard his spots?".  We, because of our sinful natures, are unable to follow God, to "overcome evil with good", as you put it, unless we are born again, which is to say, converted.  In order to be converted, we need to accept Christ as our personal savior.  I think I'll stop here and ask if you agree with this; do you see converstion as something essential? (and let's limit this to people who are beyond the age of acocuntability who have reasoning powers).

A final comment is you seemed to have based your theology entirely on the basis of verse which deal with the book of life.  I don't know why you would limit yourself just to this, when we have the entire books of Romans and Galatians, for example, which are dealing with this subject.  I also am somewhat incredulous that you seem not to perceive that there is such a thing as justification or rightouesness by faith which involves the participation of the believer, given the extent to which Paul wrote on this subject.

[Samie]

It is good to know we agree on some areas and that's a good start.  As to the individual actions of believers, I guess all that is required from man is to overcome evil with good.  Conversion is transformation from one state to another, from spiritually dead to spiritually alive.  Again we can have no part in it because before conversion, one is spiritually dead and cannot do anything spiritual. This fact is emphasized in the verse about the Ethiopian skin (Jer 13:23); our righteousness as filthy rags (Isa 64:6).  I would say that people are born converted, much like saying people are born with their names in the Book of Life.  The Pharisee did not overcome the evil of arrogance.  The Publican overcame that evil by showing humility.

I am not limiting myself to verses dealing with the Book of Life.  All verses, I think, in Scriptures that have to do with Salvation and the Gospel can best be understood when viewed under the lenses of the Book of Life.  Take for example justification by faith.  We both agree that the justifier is God through Christ. What is man's participation? You say his faith. I say Christ's faith. Why? Under the same reasoning that before justification man is spiritually dead, and cannot have any spiritual participation. All is by God's grace. Our being written in the Book of Life is the evidence that, through Christ, God has given us this grace before time began.  This grace brought salvation (Titus 2:11) to all.  That grace justified us, sanctified us, forgiven us, made us members of God's family, ushered us into the New Covenant, made us part of His Body, empowered us to overcome evil with good, converted us from spiritually dead to spiritually alive.

How can one - who had been justified, sanctified, forgiven from all sin, member of God's family, part of His Body, beneficiary of the New Covenant promises, and converted from spiritually dead to spiritually alive - be lost?  Can we undo that which God has done? No. Can we detach ourselves from His Body? No. Can we dismember ourselves from God's family? No.  So how can one be lost? I guess, when God so decides. And that decision only comes after a person dies. Does God arbitrarily decides this person is lost, the other fellow is not? No. He plainly said that overcomers will not be blotted out from the Book of Life and that they alone can enter the new heaven and the new earth. All others will be lost.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding conversion, what you are writing isn't what conversion is.  Conversion has to do with one's way of thinking.  Before one used to think in a self-centered way; self was king.  After conversion, one lives for Christ, and Christ is king; that's the idea.  Christ instead of self reigns in the throne of the heart.

We're definitely not all born this way; it would be a very different world if we were.  No, our hearts are "desperately wicked"; we need to be converted!  We need Christ!

We need to be changed, so that agape and not self-love is the governing principle in our lives.

This is such a fundamental point, I think I'll stop here, and we can move to the other areas.  Do you agree that we need to accept Jesus Christ as our personal Savior, in order to be converted?

Edited August 20, 2015 by pnattmbtc

[Samie]

The conversion which you say has to do with one's way of thinking has something to do with overcoming. It is overcoming the evil of egocentricity with altruism, overcoming the evil of selfishness with selflessness. The conversion I speak of is a change of spiritual state from spiritually dead to spiritually alive.  We have part in the conversion you speak of, but none in the conversion I am referring to.  And Yes, we absolutely need Christ in the conversion you speak of.  It is through Him that we overcome evil with good. He has already attached us to His Body. Being part of His Body we have His power to overcome evil. Apart from Him we can do nothing; attached to Him we can do everything in accordance with His will Who works in us both to will and to do His good pleasure.  The conversion I speak of lies in the realm of our attachment to Christ which He did for us in the Past Tense of Salvation.  The conversion you speak of occurs after we were attached to Christ and falls in the Present Tense of Salvation. All that we do now is simply overcoming evil with good.

Do we need to accept Jesus as our personal Savior to be converted?  Yes. Accepting Jesus as our personal Savior is believing in Him and this is overcoming the evil of unbelief.  Yet there are people who lived and died without knowing about our Lord, both before and after the cross. But they too, just like us, had been attached to His Body, converted from spiritually dead to spiritually alive. God has also written in their hearts and minds His will, His law. When they die, they too, just like us, will be judged whether they have overcome evil with good.

[pnattmbtc]

It looks like your general thinking is similar to mine, but you express yourself very differently.  For example, what you call "overcoming evil with good" to me looks like what I would call "justification by faith."

I'm happy to see that you agreed with the most important part, which is the need to accept Jesus as our personal Savior.  I agree this is overcoming the evil of unbelief, but if this is what you have in mind by the phrase "overcoming evil with good", I fear you will often be misunderstood, as most people (all that I know of) would simply call this "accepting Christ as your personal Savior".

Let's talk some about what faith is, and see if we have agreement here.  In Luke 18 the story is told of a woman who was healed by Christ, and in appreciation spent something like the equivalent of a year's salary, an enormous amount of money, to purchase alabaster ointment to annoint Jesus Christ.  She wept on Jesus' feet, and, not having a towel, dried them with her hair.  A wonderfully moving story, demonstrating the impact of believing in Jesus Christ for an individual, she "did what she could" for Jesus.  Jesus said to her, "Go in peace, your faith has saved you."

Ok, I see a couple of things here.  First of all, here is an example of salvation being spoken of not in the corporate sense, but individual sense.  She was "saved" individually by her faith, and this is what most people have in mind by the expression "justification by faith".

However, it's this next thing I really wanted to focus on, and that is, what is faith?  Faith is often seen as a mental assent to some fact, but here we see that faith encompasses such things as gratitude, appreciation, and thankfullness.  The woman appreciated what Jesus had done for her, and, in appreciation, was willing to do anything she could for the sake of Jesus, just like those in Revelation who washed their robes in the blood of the lamb.  This is the essence of Christianity; being so moved by the love and character of God revealed by Jesus Christ, especially on the cross, that we are willing to forsake all to follow Him.  This is what it means to exercise faith.  Such faith will result in overcoming evil with good.

[Samie]

What is faith? I think, it is what is needed for a man to please God.  I infer this from this verse:

^NIV Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

The good news is everyone was given faith:

^NKJ Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith.

Again, in the Past Tense of Salvation, God empowered us to overcome evil with good by attaching us to Christ Who is our Strength.  It is in the Present Tense of Salvation that we are to use that power to overcome. And for our overcoming to be pleasing to Him, He gave us faith.