Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[pnattmbtc]

I agree that faith is necessary for a man to please God, and that is because faith involves thankfulness, appreciation, gratitude.  If we do not have these things, we have a dry, worthless religion, such as the pharisees.  On the other hand, thankfullness, appreciation, gratitude will motivate us to give all for Christ, as it did Mary Magdalene in the story in Luke 18.

[pnattmbtc]

Samie: 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.

The way you are phrasing this makes it sound (to my ears) that faith and overcoming evil with good are things which can be separated, as if we could overcome evil with good without faith, but God gives us faith, so that our overcoming evil with good could be pleasing to Him.  Rather than this (and I'm not saying this is what you meant to say, but it's how I understood it), faith is the means by which evil is overcome with good.  Without faith, it would be impossible to overcome evil with good.  Also, with faith, it's impossible not to overcome evil with good. 

[Samie]

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".

Overcoming evil with good encompasses all what a person has to overcome in his lifetime.  The list of the good that man has to do is a dynamic list which God periodically writes into a person's heart and mind as the person grows in the Body of Christ.  If an opportunity to do something comes, the person, guided by the Holy Spirit, instinctively compares what comes up with what are in his list. If it is in accord with them, then it is good; otherwise, it is evil.  It is up to him to decide and act on his decision.

What I am trying to say is that overcoming evil with good is not limited to accepting Christ as our personal Savior. There are people who lived and died without personally knowing about the Savior.  Does this mean God has written nothing in their heart and minds? I would say No.  The Bible speaks of this scenario:

Romans 2:14-15   ¹⁴ for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,  ¹⁵ who show the work of the law written in their hearts . . .                                                               

But all those to whom the opportunity of knowing about our Savior was given, then their refusal to accept our Lord would be refusal to overcome the evil of unbelief in the Savior. We must remember that it is God Who determines what truth is best needed by any of His children.  The list of one is different from the list of another.  Ultimately, it is God Who decides whether one has overcome all evil or not.  The decision whether to blot our names from the Book of Life or not belongs to Him.

[pnattmbtc]

I agree with the point about there will be those who have not heard the gospel in a normal sense who will be saved, but they did respond to the Holy Spirit.  However, I think it's possible they would have accepted Christ as their personal Savior, but just in a different way, to where they didn't know that's what they were doing, but in the afterlife they will respond, "Oh!  This was You."  But this is just semantics; I'm quite sure we're on the same page here.

Regarding overcoming evil with good, I think I agree with what you are saying, but here's how I think of it.  I think that God will take everyone to heaven who would be happy there.  Those who respond to the Holy Spirit in this life will be happy on heaven.  These are they who overcome evil with good.  Those who reject the Holy Spirit would not be happy.  So, in a sense, it's not God who decides who has overcome evil with good, but the persons themselves have made this determination, by their response to the Holy Spirit.  God knows, before the resurrection, whether they would be happy or not, and resurrects each one to the "right" resurrection for them, and they, upon being resurrected, will find out too.  Those who would be happy in heaven will take part in the first resurrection, and will by happy, although they may not have had the opportunity to have heard the gospel in a normal sense (by which I mean, not by nature etc. as Romans points out, but through reading the Bible, or someone explaining the gospel to them).  Those who would be miserable in heaven will be in the second resurrection, not because God has made some decision based on some arbitrary criteria, but simply because they wouldn't be happy in heaven, because their own refusal to respond to the Holy Spirit has ruined their character to the extant that they would hate it there.  They have no love in their hearts for God.

A final point is the importance of faith in all of this.  Faith involves appreciation, gratitude, and thankfullness, which makes the heart merry in the service of God.  Without an appreciation of God's love and character, as revealed by Jesus Christ, especially at the cross, all else is worthless.

[Samie]

The way you are phrasing this makes it sound (to my ears) that faith and overcoming evil with good are things which can be separated, as if we could overcome evil with good without faith, but God gives us faith, so that our overcoming evil with good could be pleasing to Him.  Rather than this (and I'm not saying this is what you meant to say, but it's how I understood it), faith is the means by which evil is overcome with good.  Without faith, it would be impossible to overcome evil with good.  Also, with faith, it's impossible not to overcome evil with good. 

I agree that it would be impossible to overcome evil with good without faith, this is why God gave us faith, and this faith is the faith of the Son of God. But since all were given a measure of faith, yet there are many who were and will be blotted out from the Book of Life, I believe not everyone who has faith decided to overcome evil with good.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: So what ultimately saves is our position "in Christ" which is retained through faith.

I realize this is a snippet, and could be out of context, but I think I'm not taking this out of context, and have a valid point here.

It's not our position in Christ that saves us, but Christ.  This isn't just semantics. 

[Ron Amnsn]

Your premise in the quote above is false because it presumes Passover to be part of the Old Covenant.  It is not.  That covenant was not enacted until over 50 days later on the day that has since become known as Pentecost in the Greek (the 50th) or Shavuot in Hebrew (weeks).

I was questioning those who presume that Passover is only a part of the Old Covenant. 

Because the Scriptures teach that each of God's covenants incorporates (rather than replaces) the preceding covenants, I believe that Passover is indeed a part of the New Covenant.  But it wasn't until I was writing the post you quoted that I realized that the explicit command to observe the Passover preceded the Sinai covenant.  I believe Passover should still be observed (as much as is possible while in exile).  I'm wondering why those who claim to be heirs of Abraham are not celebrating it as God instructed.

The Passover in Egypt was indeed the result of the covenant and promises that God gave to Abraham.  The apostle Paul tells us that because we are bondservants of Jesus purchased with something more valuable than money, we became heirs of Abraham's covenant (as Abraham was taught). It seems, though, that most Christian heirs of Abraham are not much interested in the things that they have inherited from Abraham.

[pnattmbtc]

No one has ever been saved under any other covenant than the New Covenant.  There is, and always has been, only one way of salvation, which is by faith in Christ.

[Samie]

Contingent upon the life, death and resurrection of our Lord, the benefits of the New Covenant was first applied when Adam sinned.  Before God created Eve, He told Adam that on the day he eats the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he will SURELY die. He ate but did not die that day. Yet there was death that day. The animal, whose skin God fashioned into the covering of the first couple, died in their place.  That death, as with those of subsequent animal sacrifices in the old covenant, pointed forward to the death of the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.  No wonder our Lord is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

But how could the death of One Who knew no sin become the payment for all sins of humanity? 

The law requires the life of the sinner.  But if the sinner himself dies so he could pay for the very first sin he commits, then that would be the eternal end for him with no hope of eternal life. His own death could have paid for the sin God hates, but God would have eternally lost the sinner He loves. So, on the cross, the plan devised before time began found its implementation.  The plan incorporates a scheme whereby the sinner could pay for sin committed and at the same time give him another chance of eternal life. On the cross, humanity - Jews and Gentiles alike - was attached to the body of His Son.  When the Head died, humanity the sinner was with Him. When He rose, the body was resurrected together with Him, born again into a living hope of eternal life.

[Ron Amnsn]

I will repeat,the Law of Moses is functionally obsolete. There is no place on earth that exists where a person would be able to observe it or practice it.

Functionally obsolete? 

Yes, there are some parts of God's Law of Moses that cannot be fulfilled at the present time.  Does that give us a reason to ignore the parts of God's Law of Moses that can be followed now? 

Was there ever a time when a person could follow every instruction of God's Law of Moses? No. Not even Jesus followed every instruction in the Law.  For instance, Jesus didn't follow all the instructions that pertained to farmers, to women, or to Levitical priests.  So was God's Law of Moses "functionally obsolete" for Jesus because he couldn't do it all?  No.

This "functionally obsolete" teaching regarding God's Law of Moses seems to discourage people from even reading the Law of Moses to learn how good and perfect is God's Law of Moses.

The scriptures say:

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; (Psalm 19:7)

Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. (Psalm 119:97)

Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble. (Psalm 119:165)

Jesus taught:

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)

What benefit is there in teaching people that God's Law of Moses is "functionally obsolete"?  It seems that would only serve to keep people ignorant about how good and excellent is the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai, so they won't be able to comprehend or appreciate the "New Covenant".  It seems that telling people that God's Law of Moses is "functionally obsolete" would discourage people from accepting the New Covenant when under the New Covenant God puts his Torah into the hearts of the people of Israel and Judah. (Hebrews 8:8-11)

Edited August 22, 2015 by Ron Amnsn

[Robert]

I realize this is a snippet, and could be out of context, but I think I'm not taking this out of context, and have a valid point here.

It's not our position in Christ that saves us, but Christ.  This isn't just semantics. 

Yes, of course, Christ saves...but He saves us legally (and I know that you don't like that word). Legally speaking the law had to be fulfilled (answered).  So I stand by my statement because Christ is the last Adam (EGW says second Adam) because in Him we have a humanity that stands perfect before God's holy law.  

Here's Scripture: 

Eph 2:4 But God, ....5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved ),  6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.... NASB

Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NASB  

"In Christ" (the 2nd Adam) we have a glorified, sinless, immortal humanity. We now share in that corporate life by faith, but at the resurrection it will be ours in reality. 

Edited August 23, 2015 by Robert

[Ron Amnsn]

There is bad translating in both of these passages because the church almost universally refused to really believe in the sovereignty of God or that God will save everyone in the end as his law requires.

 

Myron, there were a few things earlier in your post that I agree with, and I have seen instances of "bad translating", but I'm curious about your claim that the law requires that God must save everyone in the end.  I haven't come across that in the Law.  Maybe we should start a new topic to discuss this.

 

In both these verses the word translated draw is not translated to show its actual meaning.  It is a legal term (as all too many of these things are) drawn directly from the courtroom.  This is not speaking of someone who comes to the courtroom because something about the case interest him, or has come voluntarily for any other reason.  This word applies in either one of two cases, but most often to the one I will explain second.  If a witness is unwilling to come forward, or it is suspected he may not voluntarily attend the court proceedings he is issued a summons called a subpoena.  This court document orders your compelled appearance in the court to provide witness to the case.  A similar document in our current court system is a traffic ticket.  If you read the fine print on this ticket it is a summons to appear in court but giving you an option to simply plead guilty and pay the fine at any time you wish before the hearing date.  It is not a subpoena because it was not sworn out before and countersigned by a judge.  If you do not If you do not answer the summons, whether by subpoena or otherwise legally issued, the judge will then swear out a warrant for your arrest, and this brings us to the second case in which  this word applies.  A person under arrest does not voluntarily come before the judge. He comes before the judge in chains accompanied by an officer of the court who is there to compel his appearance and deal with him if he becomes unruly before the judge.  There is not choice here except how it is that you will fulfill the order compelling your appearance.  It can be accomplished by my own voluntary work, but it can also be compelled later if they do not appear before the judge "voluntarily".  This is prophesied by the celebration of Passover in the second month of the year instead of the first in Numbers 9:6-14.

I haven't checked the meaning of the original language, but assuming you are correct that the word "draw" should be translated with the connotation of "summon" or "subpoena",  I don't see how that would guarantee a better outcome for rebellious sinners.  It does mean that all people will stand before Jesus someday.  However, if a person is summoned or subpoenaed to appear before Jesus at the judgment, the verdict could still go either way.  Jesus himself describes such a judgment scene in Matt 25:31-46, which doesn't seem to turn out well for some of the people.

[Ron Amnsn]

The New Covenant is, "I will write my law on their hearts."  Paul said of those gentiles in Romans 2:14, 15, "who show by their works that the law is written on their hearts." 

This is just part of the New Covenant.  Having the Law written on the heart was also part of the Sinai covenant, but in that case it is not clear who would do the writing.  When reviewing the Law of the Sinai covenant with the Israelites, Moses said that the Law was supposed to be written on the hearts:

"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!  You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart."  (Deut. 6:4-6). 

This is the passage that Jesus referred to when he was asked which was the greatest or foremost commandment.

[Ron Amnsn]

In the other discussion in this thread -- the one about what part "works" plays in salvation or justification -- it is strange that people insist on using the English definition of faith rather than the Biblical meaning of faith.  In both Hebrew and Greek, the word "faith" conveys both the meaning of belief (in your head) and also the meaning of faithfulness (the actions that result because of what you believe).  Faith and faithfulness are two sides of the same coin and cannot be separated in real life.  This is clearly exemplified in Hebrews chapter 11 (The "faith chapter" ) where the great men of faith are commended because of their actions rather than for what was in their heads. 

When reading the Scriptures In English you get a more accurate meaning for the word "faith" if you read it as "faith with faithfulness" or as "faithing" to remind you that the actions can't be separated from the faith that's in your head or heart.

It was possible for the Greeks to discuss the "belief only" kind of faith (as we have in the English language) but that is not the usual meaning in Scripture.  When James talks about this "belief only" kind of faith he clearly states that, "faith without works is dead".

Yet in the discussion I see people speaking of that dead kind of faith as if it had a valid part in New Covenant salvation or discipleship.  The New Testament believers would think you were all absolutely nuts if they heard your discussion and the way you try to separate faith from faithfulness and the way you quote passages without regard for the whole context for which they were written.

[Ron Amnsn]

I'd like to point out something about Hebrews 10:10, a verse that has come up several times in the discussion.

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

The phrase "once for all" is translated from the Greek word ephapax which carries the meaning of "once" expressed emphatically.  We don't have a word for that in English, so the translators chose a phrase in English that sort of means the same thing.  But the English phrase "once for all" also adds something to the verse that often causes misunderstandings.  The English phrase "for all" (which is not in the Greek text) seems to require a thought or word after the word all-- "for all what?". 

People who depend on English translations often insert their own ideas into the verse to fill in the blank that is suggested by "for all _____",  as if the verse said, "for all time", or "for all sins", or "for all people", or "for all sacrifices", depending on what they are trying to prove from the text. (This sometimes causes frustration when discussing the verse with other people who have inserted some other idea into the implied blank.)  But all these added meanings tend to distort what the verse meant when it was written-- that the body of Jesus the Messiah was offered just once.

The translation of ephapax (or one of its variants) as "once for all" can also add ideas and misunderstandings to these other verses:

Rom 6:10  -  For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all;
but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Heb 7:27  -  who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices,
first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people,
because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.

Heb 9:12  -  and not through the blood of goats and calves,
but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, there is no place in scripture that calls the Old Covenant a better covenant.

You are right. Scripture does not explicitly say that the "Old Covenant" is better than the Abrahamic covenant.  (The words "old covenant" appear in Scripture just once -- In 2 Corinthians 3:14 where Paul is saying that the glory veiled within the old covenant is revealed when a person comes to Messiah.)

However, by reading the two covenants it becomes apparent that the covenant God made at Sinai contains specific additional benefits when compared to the Abrahamic covenant. And because God's covenants incorporate all the covenants previously made with the forefathers, the Israelites did not lose the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant while adding the benefits of the Sinai covenant.  The Covenant given to Abraham included benefits for "all nations" while the Sinai covenant singled out the Israelites to be God's own possession-- a holy nation.  I realize that almost no one today is interested in being holy, so that might not seem beneficial to us, but it was indeed a benefit from God's perspective.  Abraham's covenant included four centuries of slavery for his descendants in a foreign land, with no possible way to avoid it.  The Sinai covenant gave the Israelites instructions how to always avoid slavery. At Sinai God gave the Israelites the plans and the ability to build the Tabernacle where God would dwell in their midst -- the forerunner of the Temple in Jerusalem about which Jesus is zealous.  At Sinai God gave the Israelites the priesthood, the Urim and Thumim, the Ark of the Covenant with the shekinah glory, the elders to serve as righteous judges and righteous laws by which to judge, an army that could always be victorious, an effective system for worship designed by God himself, and a promise that God would choose a place within the land of their inheritance where he would place his name forever.  Abraham's covenant promised his descendants the Promised land, while the Sinai covenant additionally promised them houses in the land which they would not need to build and vineyards they would not need to plant.  Under the Sinai covenant God promised the Israelites that he would remove all sickness, give them abundant harvests, give them peace in the land, and prevent the neighboring nations from coveting their land while they were celebrating God's feasts in the place that he would choose.  God also made provision so that every family in Israel (except the Levites who had a better inheritance) would own acreage (mortgage-free) that they would never lose. 

(I know a number of people who supposedly live under the "New Covenant" who are deep in debt, sick, worried, and pay high insurance premiums because they don't have the blessings that God gave to the Israelites under the Sinai covenant.)

Edited August 24, 2015 by Ron Amnsn

[Ron Amnsn]

 In fact, Paul makes it pretty clear that this cannot be a better covenant. 

In Galatians 3 and 4 Paul calls on the Abrahamic covenant instead of the "Old Covenant" for specific reasons.  The dispute in Galatia was about the methods that were required to bring Gentile believers into the congregation and covenants of Israel.  The man-made traditions of "oral law" put the Gentile proselytes under bondage to the man-made traditions of oral law in a way that even native-born Israelites were not bound.

Some Jewish sages taught that the only way for a Gentile to be "saved" was to turn the Gentile into an Israelite.  So they had concocted a man-made program that supposedly did this. That traditional proselyte program had been the status quo for Gentiles turning to God for longer than anyone could remember, and it was used among believers until the Jerusalem Council.  One of the requirements of the program was that the Gentile proselyte be taught the man-made traditions of "oral law" that the Jewish sages had created to "guard" the Torah instructions given by God to Moses in Scripture.  Then at the culmination of the program when the proselyte was circumcised, they were required to make a solemn vow before God to follow all those traditional oral laws as well as the instructions contained in Scripture -- a vow that native-born Israelites were not required to make. So when they learned the "the way" of Messiah, Israelites were free to follow Jesus and Scripture and to abandon the unnecessary man-made traditions of "oral law".  The Gentile proselytes, on the other hand, would still be bound by the unnecessary vow they had made -- because Scripture (including the writings of Paul) teaches that we must honor our vows when they don't conflict with God's word.  It appears that the word "Circumcision" in the New Testament sometimes refers to this traditional proselyte program that culminated with the ritualized circumcision of the proselyte.  Since Paul circumcised Timothy, and said nothing against circumcising 8-day-old boys, it is apparent that he wasn't against the simple circumcision of the Abrahamic covenant, and his writings reflect that.

Also, in an effort to lend authority to their man-made traditions, Jews (even to this day) claim that the traditions of "oral law" were given at Mt. Sinai by God and transmitted orally from Mt. Sinai down through the generations.  (That claim is unfounded.)  Jewish tradition also teaches that all of the 70 nations of the earth were represented within the "mixed multitude" who entered into the covenant at Mt. Sinai alongside the Israelites.  So it is quite possible that the traditional Jews at Galatia talked of the bondage-making vow that was required of Gentile proselytes as if it were a re-enactement or parallel of the covenant made at Mt. Sinai. 

Paul used the Abrahamic covenant to show that foreigners could be brought into covenant according to instructions given to Abraham, without the vow required by the traditional proselyte program that resulted in bondage to the man-made laws.

The covenant of circumcision that Abraham received in Genesis 17 before Isaac was born, stipulates that foreigners who are purchased as bondservants by the descendants of Abraham were to receive the sign of the covenant -- circumcision.  Paul tells us that we are bondservants of Chist, who is a descendant of Abraham (through Isaac and Jacob), and that we are purchased by Christ, which according to the Abrahamic covenant brings us into that covenant and makes us heirs of Abraham's household (with males being subject to the sign of the covenant as Timothy was). In Romans 9-11 Paul teaches that the true children of promise are the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, so we are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel.

In his contrast between Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4, Paul is contrasting the methods that produced offspring for the two women.  Hagar produced offspring using human-devised methods that resulted in offspring born into slavery.   Sarah produced offspring born according to the promises of God, when it seemed impossible by natural methods.  When Paul says that the two women represent two covenants, I believe Hagar represents the human-devised covenant that the traditional Jews required of Gentile proselytes, which would bring them into the congregation according to man-made methods supposedly "from Mt. Sinai," resulting in bondage to man-made rules. Sarah represents the covenant given to Abraham as a promise and inherited by Christ -- a promise that brings Gentiles into the the covenant as bondservants of Christ, living according to the Law of liberty -- the same Law that Jesus lived by.

When taken in full context, Acts 15 shows that the issue at the Jerusalem Council was not the Law of Moses, but was the traditional man-made laws of "oral law" that supposedly "guarded" the instructions given by God.

[8thdaypriest]

A person can know about Christ through nature and the Holy Spirit, so anyone (who has the ability to reason) can be under the New Covenant.

    If that were true - that just looking at the works of creation was enough to tell everyone that God exists, and has a Son, and has a law which everyone must obey, then there would be NO SUCH THING as “sins of ignorance” - not since folks began looking at the stars.  But since there were “times of ignorance”, that means just looking at nature is NOT ENOUGH to lead one to salvation in Christ Jesus.

I might agree that any person WITH the ability to reason, can come to "believe" there must be a power beyond - a Creator.  But that doesn't tell them Who this power is.  (Hence all the pagan worship of "gods").   

With all the teaching of evolution now days, just looking at the stars or "nature" is not likely to bring one to that awareness.  More likely, considering the amazing complexity of the human mind, would lead one to "believe" there must be a "Higher Power".  But this does NOT tell them Who that power is.  

The Spirit of Christ is omnipresent.  He does "touch" everyone.  But people must HEAR the gospel, before they can "believe" in Christ.  I agree, that sometimes they "hear" the gospel from an angel visitor, or through a dream or "vision" first.  These supernatural messages usually come just prior to the arrival of missionaries. 

    I Thessalonians 3:16   [Persecution by Jews and pagans] “forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,”

        To paraphrase Paul, “If we don’t speak to the Gentiles about Christ, they cannot be saved.”

 A human being must HEAR the Gospel, in order to BELIEVE.  Belief is the response, TO the Spirit of Christ, but this response is catalyzed  by what is heard.  BOTH the Spirit AND the message are required for "belief".   

If the only thing required was the Spirit, then WHY tell the disciples to "go ye therefore and teach all nations" ?

    Romans 10:14 “But how are they to call on One in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in One of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim Him?” (NRS)

    Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (NRS)

 

 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

 

Romans 1 says the following:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful;

 This points out that all have enough knowledge that they should glorify God and be thankful to Him.

I'm not sure this verse is speaking of ALL MANKIND.  The men in this passage "hold the truth".  They just "hold the truth in unrighteousness".  Sound like the Pharisees to me.  Those are the ones who distorted the truth. 

Verse 21 says these men "knew God". 

A pagan in the darkest jungles of Africa, who believes that human sacrifice will please the "gods", certainly has not known God, nor held the truth. 

The ones condemned in this passage are those who "hold the truth" (know the truth of God and His law) yet perform "ungodliness and unrighteousness". 

[8thdaypriest]

^KJV Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

 

The wording of this verse suggests several things:

1.  Their eyes must be opened BEFORE they can receive forgiveness of sins.  And how are their eyes opened?  By HEARING the Gospel, under the influence of the Spirit of Christ.

2.  BEFORE they can have an inheritance among those who are sanctified, they must "TURN" "from darkness to light".  But what causes this "turning"?  Answer:  HEARING the Gospel.

3.  BEFORE they can receive the inheritance, they must "TURN from the power of Satan - to God".  What cause this "turning"?  Answer:  HEARING the Gospel. 

If every human being was ALREADY SANCTIFIED by what Jesus would do, and did do, then these conditions would NOT APPLY. 

[8thdaypriest]

Under what covenant is a person who lived and died without knowing about Christ?

A better question might be: Under what covenant is the person who lived and died without knowing of the only God, or of His only begotten Son? 

The covenant with Adam after the Fall?  The covenant with Noah?  The covenant with Abraham?  The covenant of Sinai? 

The promise to Adam, that the Seed of the woman would crush the Serpent's head - yes - that one seems to apply. 

The Serpent claimed dominion OVER all of the earth, including all descendants of Adam.  Once the Serpent is crushed, and the Seed of the woman then has the dominion, all of these ignorant people can be resurrected, and then educated in the things of God.  They can HEAR the Gospel, and then believe or refuse to believe.  I believe that will be the resurrection of "the nations" as the "rest of the dead".

All of those who lived during "times of ignorance" (and there WERE "times of ignorance") are NOT GUILTY of rebellion against Yahweh, because they never knew of Him, or of His law. 

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would have NO SIN."  No sin, is no sin.  Bad things - done in ignorance - are NOT counted against you, BECAUSE Jesus paid.    

Does that mean these people get a FREE PASS into the everlasting kingdom?  No!  They have not fulfilled the one condition.

"Abraham believed God." 

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." 

No one will be given eternal life and citizenship in the Kingdom of God, who has NOT BELIEVED. 

 

[pnattmbtc]

I realize this is a snippet, and could be out of context, but I think I'm not taking this out of context, and have a valid point here.

It's not our position in Christ that saves us, but Christ.  This isn't just semantics. 

Robert: Yes, of course, Christ saves...but He saves us legally (and I know that you don't like that word). Legally speaking the law had to be fulfilled (answered).  So I stand by my statement because Christ is the last Adam (EGW says second Adam) because in Him we have a humanity that stands perfect before God's holy law.  

Here's Scripture: 

Eph 2:4 But God, ....5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved ),  6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.... NASB

Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NASB  

"In Christ" (the 2nd Adam) we have a glorified, sinless, immortal humanity. We now share in that corporate life by faith, but at the resurrection it will be ours in reality. 

I think understanding the problem as primarily legal (or worse, only legal) is superficial.  The problem between God and man involves man's actually being estranged from God.  Man needs to be brought back to God, to see God as He really is, so he can be reconciled, not just legally, but in fact, as in an actual relationship, where God is viewed as a friend.

Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father to us.  When we see this, the entirety of all the Gospels becomes relevant, not just a few verses in the Pauline epistles. 

[pnattmbtc]

    If that were true - that just looking at the works of creation was enough to tell everyone that God exists, and has a Son, and has a law which everyone must obey, then there would be NO SUCH THING as “sins of ignorance” - not since folks began looking at the stars.  But since there were “times of ignorance”, that means just looking at nature is NOT ENOUGH to lead one to salvation in Christ Jesus.

I might agree that any person WITH the ability to reason, can come to "believe" there must be a power beyond - a Creator.  But that doesn't tell them Who this power is.  (Hence all the pagan worship of "gods").   

With all the teaching of evolution now days, just looking at the stars or "nature" is not likely to bring one to that awareness.  More likely, considering the amazing complexity of the human mind, would lead one to "believe" there must be a "Higher Power".  But this does NOT tell them Who that power is.  

The Spirit of Christ is omnipresent.  He does "touch" everyone.  But people must HEAR the gospel, before they can "believe" in Christ.  I agree, that sometimes they "hear" the gospel from an angel visitor, or through a dream or "vision" first.  These supernatural messages usually come just prior to the arrival of missionaries. 

    I Thessalonians 3:16   [Persecution by Jews and pagans] “forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved,”

        To paraphrase Paul, “If we don’t speak to the Gentiles about Christ, they cannot be saved.”

 A human being must HEAR the Gospel, in order to BELIEVE.  Belief is the response, TO the Spirit of Christ, but this response is catalyzed  by what is heard.  BOTH the Spirit AND the message are required for "belief".   

If the only thing required was the Spirit, then WHY tell the disciples to "go ye therefore and teach all nations" ?

    Romans 10:14 “But how are they to call on One in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in One of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim Him?” (NRS)

    Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (NRS)

 

 

 

 

From Romans 1, we read that all have been shown enough about God not only that they should acknowledge Him, but that they should give Him thanks.  So God has revealed enough of Himself, of His character, that those who refuse to give Him thanks may be held accountable.

Regarding why "go ye therefore and teach all nations"?, that's easy.  The more one knows the truth about God, the more likely one is to serve Him.

[Samie]

The wording of this verse suggests several things:

1.  Their eyes must be opened BEFORE they can receive forgiveness of sins.  And how are their eyes opened?  By HEARING the Gospel, under the influence of the Spirit of Christ.

2.  BEFORE they can have an inheritance among those who are sanctified, they must "TURN" "from darkness to light".  But what causes this "turning"?  Answer:  HEARING the Gospel.

3.  BEFORE they can receive the inheritance, they must "TURN from the power of Satan - to God".  What cause this "turning"?  Answer:  HEARING the Gospel. 

If every human being was ALREADY SANCTIFIED by what Jesus would do, and did do, then these conditions would NOT APPLY. 

If one is spiritually dead CAN he hear spiritually? I would say No, he can't.

And people were made spiritually alive when Jesus was resurrected:

Ephesians 2:4-6   ⁴ But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,  ⁵ even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),  ⁶ and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus

Christ was dead first before He can be resurrected. And it was through His death that we were sanctified:

^NAS Hebrews 10:10   By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Our being sanctified preceded our being made alive.  Our spiritual hearing comes after we were made spiritually alive.  We were sanctified through His death, then made spiritually alive through His resurrection so that we can spiritually hear.

[Samie]

A better question might be: Under what covenant is the person who lived and died without knowing of the only God, or of His only begotten Son? 

The covenant with Adam after the Fall?  The covenant with Noah?  The covenant with Abraham?  The covenant of Sinai? 

The promise to Adam, that the Seed of the woman would crush the Serpent's head - yes - that one seems to apply. 

The Serpent claimed dominion OVER all of the earth, including all descendants of Adam.  Once the Serpent is crushed, and the Seed of the woman then has the dominion, all of these ignorant people can be resurrected, and then educated in the things of God.  They can HEAR the Gospel, and then believe or refuse to believe.  I believe that will be the resurrection of "the nations" as the "rest of the dead".

All of those who lived during "times of ignorance" (and there WERE "times of ignorance") are NOT GUILTY of rebellion against Yahweh, because they never knew of Him, or of His law. 

Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would have NO SIN."  No sin, is no sin.  Bad things - done in ignorance - are NOT counted against you, BECAUSE Jesus paid.    

Does that mean these people get a FREE PASS into the everlasting kingdom?  No!  They have not fulfilled the one condition.

"Abraham believed God." 

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." 

No one will be given eternal life and citizenship in the Kingdom of God, who has NOT BELIEVED. 

Then why this question?

^KJV Zechariah 13:6 And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Obviously the one asking the question has no knowledge about His crucifixion, yet he is personally with the Lord and asked Him the question. 

Believing is a spiritual act which can only be done by one who is spiritually alive. And we all were made spiritually alive through the resurrection of our Lord.