SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : A New Covenant

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/22 18:57:43

Quote:
So, is it established already in this thread that only circucision as sign of, and the old priesthood and regimen of that have been the only thing to change?



It certainly isn't established in my mind. A distinction is often made between the moral and the ceremonial 'law' but I question whether we have the authority to do this.

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This seems to be declaring that the 'moral' and the 'ceremonial' cannot be divided and that where one is affected the other must also be affected. But the Levitical priesthood had not been modified or added to, it has been ended.

The moral law and the priesthood were an inseparable unit. The covenant would not have lasted a day without the priestly functions which enabled atonement and forgiveness. When the Levitical priesthood ended the Sinai covenant was unworkable.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/7/24 3:36Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/24 2:04:35

Quote:
You two do not think Law is grace, but Law is Grace:



Not so. The law was an expression of God's love...

And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people; all his saints [are] in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; [every one] shall receive of thy words. Moses commanded us a law, [even] the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. Deut 33:2-4

...from his right hand went a fiery law. Yea, he loved the people...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/7/24 3:40Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

robert wrote:

Quote:
Because I'm not convinced Job knew the 10 Commandments as they were delivered by Moses. In my view Job lived long before Moses.



In chapter 31 of Job we find 5 of the 10 commandments in just 40 verses.

Are you convinced by the Scripture in Job 31 that Job knew 5 Commandments?

Remember that all Scripture is given to us by the power of the Holy Spirit...

In Christ
Jeff

Add thought....yes Job lived long before the time of Moses...the whole book of Job is a problem for those who "think" dispensationally.(sp)


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2010/7/24 7:39Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Are you convinced by the Scripture in Job 31 that Job knew 5 Commandments?



I believe Job knew God's mind on the matter, but I don't believe Moses was the source of that revelation.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2010/7/24 8:26Profile
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3420
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: philologos - adoption

I wanted to say that I loved reading the beauty of "adoption" and also its ramifications. Thank you for posting this. I never knew this.

God bless you,
Lysa


Quote:
philologos wrote on page 20_2010/7/22 11:19:
Quote:
Paul is always talking about the weakness of the flesh in comparison to the power of the Holy Spirit when defining who are the children of God, who are the "adopted"



adoption is a very rich and wonderful topic but not to be confused with modern day adoptions. Today we think of adoption as a means of providing protection for the infant. This is not the idea in the Biblical use of adoption. Julius Caesar 'adopted' Octavius who became Augustus but Octavius was a man when he was adopted. In ancient times a man was adopted to maintain the dynasty or line. Hadrian said that 'adopted sons were better than natural children because they were chosen'.

The Greek word for adoption is 'son placing'; it refers to a public acknowledgment that the adopted person was now the heir of the one adopting him The adopted person lost all his previous 'rights and responsibilities' but inherited all those of his adopted father.

There was an interesting case in the UK recently. A man was traced who was the nearest relative of someone who had died without making a will. The deceased relative had left several thousand British pounds. They traced the natural son and he was very excited at the prospect of the inheritance, but there was a hitch. The man's mother and father divorced and the woman remarried. The young son stayed with the mother and was adopted by his 'step father'.

This had the effect that he became legal heir to the new father but lost all his rights to the estate of his natural father. He was not eligible for the inheritance. Adoption is not a pretty picture of care but a legal change in inheritance and destiny.


_________________
Lisa

 2010/7/24 11:34Profile









 According to who?

Hopefully, there will be no more chasing rabbit trails after this. It detracts from the primary objective and message: why Jesus died and rose again.

Focus on any issue denigrating the completeness of all Jesus has done towards making us able to walk with God in all things is neither profitable nor beneficial.



i may not have all my p's and q's in the right places yet, but i'm learning.

Can we just force whatever ideas and rationalizations we suppose to be true with only certain scriptures that SEEM TO match the rendition of what we think God reveals through His testimony?

Who gave anybody authority to do this.



Bob, you stated as premise to one of your respondent posts:
"This thread has established that the Old Covenant has passed away with the advent of the Seed (Jesus Christ)."

Oh, Really? How do you define advent?

Here's the advent of the Seed (Jesus Christ) as seen by these eyes:

You were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ, like a lamb without spot or blemish, pre-known and established before the foundation of the world. By Him all things were created in heaven and earth...all things were created through Him and for Him.

i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light.

Does that sound like abolished?

That hardly sounds like anything has even passed away. In this very fact, i can boldly state that the Old Covenant has never passed away.

Jesus stated plainly that NOTHING WILL PASS AWAY FROM THE LAW until both earth and heaven pass away, Matthew 5:18. In this very fact, i can boldly state that the Old covenant has never passed away.

Have heaven or earth passed away?
How does that square with what Bob and Ron claim this thread has proven...and where are all these verses that prove this claim?



Rather, how about a verse from one of the Bible books that seems to be misconstrued to mean something other than what is stated?

'Brothers, to give a human example,
even with a man-made oath in covenant,
nobody annuls or adds to it
once it has been ratified.'
Gal. 3:15

Now if we deny that Jesus ratified...
--as in made 'fresh' and completely valid--
...the Covenant that was initiated as a promise to Abraham and foreshadowed through the Old, there is still a major flaw in saying that the Law is either passed away or abolished. According to Jesus, since heaven and earth have not passed away, neither has any of the Torah.

There are far to many scriptures which contradict what this thread claims to be truth... and we can start with Galatians 3: Jesus ratified (not abolished) the Old Covenant. This is the foundation to that whole book and the very basis for the Bible. Jesus ratified the Old Covenant, because it was God swearing covenant-oath to God, and not merely man-made. Nothing ever changed, but actually was clarified, because God is not a man that He should lie. God never changes and He honors His Word above His very name.



Ron you said that it was love is manifested through (the giving of) Law and either imply in that grace is not part of love or are you just nitpicking again? If grace is not love and love is not grace, you have alot of explaining to do.

Let's go back to Jesus and realize that keeping the commandments are relative to the flow of grace (which is loves expression). John 14 is just one chapter explaining that in keeping His commandments, our Heavenly Father, as well as Jesus and His spirit comes to be with/in us, but look at the imperative cause:

v. 15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

v. 17 This is what I command you:keep loving each other.
(Love is the Law manifested, right Ron?)

v.21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me...

v.23 ...Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one that loves me...



Youz guys can keep on picking apart fine points ignoring context toward the whole of scripture, but doesn't this mislead others as well to miss the main point.

What benefit to anyone is there in this?

Jesus leading up to obeying God in the spirit of the Law as in it's letter began and in conclusion clarified, "For this reason, whoever will break one of the tiniest commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven... Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that say to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord... ...then will I proclaim to them,'I never knew you: leave my presence you Law breakers.' "


Think seriously about what you are claiming to be truth to other readers, and ignoring such passages as:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous... 1 Jn. 5:2-3


What part of the Old covenant has passed away?

It has been ratified (aka: made fresh) and nothing of it has passed away because neither heaven nor earth has passed away.



Here's the way erronious conclusions on this thread are seen. Compared to what is attempted to be made true without infallible proof, still, scripture does not contradict itself. Human reasonings and rationalizations, on the other hand, tend to contradict both the thinker, and always the scripture.


Some of this threads conclusions leave three possibilities:

1.) Conclusions already established on this thread are like a faulty foundation on which other erronious conclusions are built.

2.) Paul is contradicting Jesus, the Law, and the prophets...

3.) Jesus is confused or lying about what He says...




Who has the most authority?

1.) Us

2.) Paul

3.) Jesus


Who agreed with His/our Father about this plan and knows all the fine nitty gritty details about it?

1.) Us

2.) Paul

3.) Jesus


There are some things on this thread that stand in direct contradiction to what scripture plainly states, and of this, only one main issue has just been given more light.

More is coming...DV

Getting this to stop now is like getting a pitbull to let go when fixated ...a death-gripped jaw locked as teeth are tearing and digging deep.




It's time to re-establish what is actually true without contradicting scripture.

Love, Faith, and Hope,
gregg


...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

 2010/7/24 15:13
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re: According to who?

Gregg said, "i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light."

Surely you are not trying to suggest, Gregg, that God will call for the sacrifices of the Law again in His "established kingdom on earth"? That's what C.I. Scofield taught... that when Ezekiel's temple is built, those sacrifices-- of lambs and goats and bulls and heifers-- will be instituted again, but as "memorial" sacrifices that look back at the sacrifice of the Cross, just as at one time they looked ahead to it. That's... I just shake my head at that.

And is that what you are teaching as well?

...Gregg, you seem to have a good heart, and a love for the Lord, as near as I can tell from your posts. But you have a blind spot there, dear brother. There is something you are just not seeing.


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/7/24 18:36Profile









 Re:

by ADisciple on 2010/7/24 14:36:44

Gregg said, "i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light."

Surely you are not trying to suggest, Gregg, that God will call for the sacrifices of the Law again in His "established kingdom on earth"? That's what C.I. Scofield taught... that when Ezekiel's temple is built, those sacrifices-- of lambs and goats and bulls and heifers-- will be instituted again, but as "memorial" sacrifices that look back at the sacrifice of the Cross, just as at one time they looked ahead to it. That's... I just shake my head at that.

And is that what you are teaching as well?
------------------------------------------------------------
No, i have never thought or taught of Ezekiel's vision regarded memorial sacrafices.

The Holy Day Shabbat's of Isaiah has not been thought or taught to be such either.

I just know that this is what scripture says and who are we to even think we can change anything.

i have taught that there are specific things i do not yet completely understand nor do i know the answer. i have been wrong about alot before and there is no doubt at all that even if i dared proffer explanation beyond what is very clear, i am probably wrong... as well, even about things that SEEM very clear.

(None of us are completely clear just how deceitful our hearts really are. Thanks to God, we experience His mercy and love in Jesus Christ.)

i do instruct that if we do not both do and teach we are only speculating and it is not actually true in us, so all it amounts to is speculation ...and there are alot of things that even though we think are obvious to us, we will some day realize we were wrong.

i do think and teach that this is what God says and it is not good to speculate beyond what God has stated if He has not given COMPLETE revelation to understand matters such as:

1.) These two prophecies;

2.) What are the specifics beyond what is written about God preparing to slay Moses;

3.) Jephthah's oath and what exactly the sacrafice of his daughter entailed;

4.) The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John...

There are alot of things i still wonder about beyond these, but as has occurred in the past, revelation comes through obediently trusting God in His service.

Farther along we will know.
___________________________________________________________



...Gregg, you seem to have a good heart, and a love for the Lord, as near as I can tell from your posts. But you have a blind spot there, dear brother. There is something you are just not seeing.
------------------------------------------------------------

My heart has been corrupted and it is only the goodness of Jesus Christ that has placed this love in my heart. If it were not for the prayers and support of other members in His body through obedience to His Headship, i would be a real hot mess. I'm stilll 'a piece of work' in processing.

Yes, i have alot of blind spots, yet i can not go and say that things have changed when Jesus says they haven't and will not until heaven and earth pass away...as the Everlasting Covenant shadowed through and in the Old is promised to a thousand generations, even so, this has not even transpired half-way yet.)

There are alot of things i just am not seeing, and i just shake my head at my own failure to comprehend. I know it's because of my own unfathfulness to serve Him as i should.

Blind spots are an understatement. How about??? "gregg, you are a dumb sheeple and Jesus is the only one that makes you right."

He loves you and me!


May all the Love, Hope, and Faith
manifest through Jesus Christ
flow through our hearts
and out into the world
as we continue in pursuit of Him,

gregg

 2010/7/24 21:55
twayneb
Member



Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
A distinction is often made between the moral and the ceremonial 'law' but I question whether we have the authority to do this.



Have been away from this thread for some time. I have heard people discuss a "moral" and a "ceremonial" law, but I can find no such concept scripturally. Hebrews 7:12 that you quoted is part of a wonderful explanation of the two covenants.

Another scripture that applies to the discussion is James 2: 8-12. Notice that the thing that convinces us as transgressors is the law and that if a man keeps 99% of the law yet offends in one part becomes guilty of breaking ALL the law. The law is like a large plate glass window. Shoot a BB through it or drive a truck through it and it is broken just the same. Such a window could not be repaired and would need to be replaced in either case. So with the law. It does not matter if you fail to keep a "ceremonial" part of the law or a "moral" part of the law, you have broken the whole of the law. So there can be no distinction between two "parts" of the law in which we are required to keep one but not required to keep the other. Even if we were able to make such a distinction, if we keep what we call the "moral" part and offend in what we call the "ceremonial" part, we are guilty of breaking the "moral" part of the law as well.

If we take the New Testament teaching on the law found in Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Colossians, and several other mentions, we find overwhelmingly that the purpose of the law was, like James says, to convince us of sin. But the law was totally inadequate to do anything about that sin. The law and the prophets witnessed of Christ. The law did so by showing us that we could not be righteous by any actions of our own. Keeping the law is of no redemptive purpose. Galatians 2:16 states this explicitly. But faith in Christ brings redemption from the wrath and judgment that we deserved.

I think the primary problem some have with the idea that we are no longer required to keep the law is the fear that we will be unrestrained. The law served a purpose of restraining sin by fear of punishment and wrath before the redemptive work of Christ. But after a man is born again, he no longer needs the restraint of the fear of punishment for breaking the law. Romans 6:14, Romans 8, Hebrews 2. We are constrained by the transforming and regenerating work of Christ in our own spirits. I have been born again and now I am no longer under the dominion of sin. I am dead to sin and alive unto God. If I have to tell someone, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", or thou shall go to hell in order to keep that person on the straight and narrow and prevent them from committing adultery, then I question whether that person has been born again.

I am obeying the perfect law of liberty. I am no longer bound by the law given to Moses. It was just a shadow of God's holiness anyway. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5 when he told the people that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and pharisees or they would not enter His kingdom. The Pharisees were renown for their observance of the law. But Jesus said that one must exceed their righteousness to be right before God. Jesus then proceeds to give examples of the law falling short of God's true holiness. You have heard it written...but I say.... He sums it up by saying that if you are going to make it on your own you will have to be perfect just as God is perfect. That is impossible and in one fail swoop Jesus obliterated all hopes in these people that they could somehow be good enough by keeping laws to please God. He demonstrated that God's holy standard far exceeded the law.

The law was good and the law was righteous, but the law was not nearly as great a standard as God's own righteousness. God does not desire us to keep out of obligation what is only a shadow of His holiness. He wants to make us righteous and allow His Holy Spirit to live out through us His life, the fruits of His righteousness, which are in the life of a believer true holiness.


_________________
Travis

 2010/7/24 22:11Profile
ADisciple
Member



Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada

 Re:

Travis said, "Another scripture that applies to the discussion is James 2: 8-12. Notice that the thing that convinces us as transgressors is the law and that if a man keeps 99% of the law yet offends in one part becomes guilty of breaking ALL the law. The law is like a large plate glass window. Shoot a BB through it or drive a truck through it and it is broken just the same. Such a window could not be repaired and would need to be replaced in either case. So with the law. It does not matter if you fail to keep a "ceremonial" part of the law or a "moral" part of the law, you have broken the whole of the law. So there can be no distinction between two "parts" of the law in which we are required to keep one but not required to keep the other. Even if we were able to make such a distinction, if we keep what we call the "moral" part and offend in what we call the "ceremonial" part, we are guilty of breaking the "moral" part of the law as well."

Excellent comparison, Travis!


_________________
Allan Halton

 2010/7/25 0:40Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy