The New Covenant

Hello AgedMan, you point out what is probably one of the most significant points to consider concerning the Lord's teaching concerning the events of the Tribulation, the questions asked by His disciples which lead into His teaching, and the other aspect which couples with their questions (and I agree...there are three), which is the expectation they have in asking these questions.

I would say probably one of the things that gets us in trouble is trying to maintain adherence to a theology that has to exclude another and that would try to box us into one or the other, rather than allowing for the possibility that perhaps both groups have valid points.

We can recognize the individual covenants of scripture, as well as the different "ages" in which the revelation of knowledge increases.

We know more detail concerning Christ than they which were under the Covenant of law, that cannot be denied, and we can expect, when Christ comes, to no more. However, when Christ comes, it will not be a matter that the Gospel will be revealed in more detail where it would significantly change our understanding of how we are saved, it will be a matter of realization of further fulflillment concerning the same understanding, such as we know we will be glorified, then (when He comes), we will be glorified.

Thanks for the participation, I believe as we look at this we can better understand the New Covenant, if we seek to have serious discussion. Even those that hold a different view can contribute, as I have found that an opposing presentation usually offers the opposite result, revealing the weakness of the view itself. For this reason I am a firm believer in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture...lol. The more it is opposed, and the more I look at the presentations for a differing view, the more difficulties arise with other views.

Okay, again, thanks for the participation, I am really looking forward to this thread.

God bless.

 

That might be said. The fellowship in which I am a member could be called dispensational, and there is much that I find in this theology that at the very least, has to be given due credit.

But I like to think that the views I hold are taught to me by God through diligent study...just as we all do...lol.

But what I have learned in talking with other believers (and non-believers) is that we make a big mistake by trying to wrap people in a one-size-fits-all wrapper.

Some that call themselves dispensational make arguments that I believe to be in error. That does not mean I am in disagreement with all they say.

I seem to have a hard time fitting in with anybody...lol. And I am okay with that. This is why I love to discuss doctrine, because an honest look at the basis of our belief leads to serious consideration of the views we hold. Which is why I dislike trying to label people, though, I have found that those involved in a legalistic view can be labeled, though it is good to be careful when trying to speak with them.

God bless.

 

I agree with both of these in the sense that the Covenant of Law was specific to Israel (though it did not prohibit Gentiles from participation though in a limited means in some points) and Hebrews makes it clear that it is this Covenant in view.

But, as I said before, when we look at the view held by some seeing a "general covenant," I would not be so quick to brand that heretical, because I can see how they would have that view. Such as, one who see's that all covenants participates in the same result which God intends for man concerning man's redemption thereby concluding "one general covenant," I don't have a problem with that. There are several implicit doctrines that are believed which are not taught in so many words, and I look at this as one way to view redemption which comes through God.

We can see that man's salvation has always been by grace through faith, though we do not read this phrase in every account of God's intervention on behalf of man, whether it is temporal on eternal. Such as the thief on the cross. Most would agree that this man was saved by faith, for he received promise from the Lord.

God bless.

 

Hello Van, to be honest, if I am in error concerning a pre-trib rapture, which I allow is a very real pssibility due to the nature of prphecy and how it is fulfilled, I would take a mid-trib view before a post-trib.

Meaning, if I see the events of the Tribulation unfolding, I will at that point look for the rapture mid-trib...lol.

I would agree in part that we could say that revelation is vague, though PD doctrine has only led me to a more conclusive belief in the pre-trib position. The arguments presented, though some of them very well thought out and presented in an extremely reasonable manner, have been examined in detail and have not convinced me.

A pre-trib view can take the passages as they are written, whereas other views rely heavily upon lengthy discourses as to why the passages do not mean what they say. An examination of the differences between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of Paul show different events are in view, and the differences themselves lead me to a pre-trib view.

One of the arguments presented which is one of their best concerns the word wrath, and distinguishing between orge and thymos wrath, seeking to show that the Church is only to miss eternal wrath, not temporal. But the passages themselves reveal, I believe, that this is not the case exclusively.

And...I could ramble on about this forever...lol, so back to the New Covenant. If you would like to start a Rapture thread, I would be glad to participate.

Well...lol.

You might be surprised as the presentations I have been given concerning this. There are a few doctrines that we always associate with what most of us would call cults, but...the embracing of some of these doctrines by those we would otherwise conselder very close to us has exploded in recent years.

For instance:

1-Soul Sleep.

2-Annihilation.

3-Michael is Jesus.

All three of those we would associate with a group most consider a cult, however, I have found that addressing these issues with those who believe these to be very difficult.

I deny all three of these, and believe I can give scriptural basis for their denial, but they have crept into evangelical circles lately, and are defended.

Number three is held by at least some PDs, and they give very good presentations for why they believe it. But, we are in agreement that Jesus is Jesus, and Michael is Michael.

And I agree with that, as it is expressed here. We can see the New Covenant fulfilling the promises made to Abraham, for example.

Agreed. Yet, I believe that there is a temporal application, such as the promised Kingdom, which has it's prominence in National Israel, and is yet to be fulfilled.

Galatians 3 would need to be discussed in detail, as to how it applies to the New Covenant, and I look forward to that. This one chapter alone could probably extend to intensive discussion, and that is just one chapter.

And, I look forward to discussing this topic, so far, the disccusion has been great.

God bless.

 

Hello Steve, I appreciate very much the contribution you are making in this thread. I always long for discussion of this nature, which takes a serious look at the issue at hand, so, thanks much.

As far as the quote provided, this was given in another thread as representing the doctrinal belief of NCTers, so, being one that spends very little time studying or analyzing beyond the specific beliefs of indivuals, as well as my own personal study in scripture, I cannot say how much this represents the beliefs of NCTers, their doctrinal statement as a whole, or the individual beliefs of those associated with NCT.

You are going a little outside of my historical knowledge as well, lol, I am afraid that I spend little time looking at the beliefs of those who have gone before us.

What I amost interested in is where those that are members of the body today stand on these issues, and the basis of their belief. While I do not dismiss the contributions of Church "fathers," I am one that believes that we must be able for ourselves to present scriptural basis for what we believe, and it is on this that we can rely upon God to lead us to an understanding which He gives us.

For the most part, I am unfamiliar with some of the ones referenced, though, like the post that quoted John Owen, always glad to look at quotes, and it gladdens my heart to see that I am not a nut, but that even long ago there were those that had beliefs similar to my own, so, I think that in that sense, the quotes are beneficial.

I just may do that, though for quite some time I have tried to limit the amount of extrabiblical resources, and I would like to explain why: in the time that I have spent discussing doctrine, I have found that a resource other than direct biblical presentation can lead to a circular argument.

I have heard of A.W. Pink, I believe, but have not read anything by him, so, it may be I may try to find this. If you could provide a link I would be grateful.

Probably, though I would say I am in agreement with what you have said concerning it.

And I would agree with this. However, when we discuss scripture with our legalistic brothers, we can see where covenants, rather than general truths concerning God's expectation based upon His righteousness, get blended.

One argument presented by some surrounds the use of kainos, new. They try to mold the New Covenant into a refurbished First Covenant, in an attempt to blend the two, rather than seeing one ending, another beginning (in the life of the Church). Some deny the New Covenant as meant (much less enjoined by) for the Church, but for Israel only. These are just a few issues discussed in the debate, but notable ones, I think.

When Christ taught Israel, in His role of Prophet, He expounded the Law to them, showing the meaning of the Law in it's complete intent, such as prohibition of adultery to be a matter of the heart, rather than the physical completion of this sin.

All in all...agreed.

I hope you did not think I was suggesting you had, that was not my intention. The reference was more to those that view the New Covenant as a refurbished Mosaic Covenant in which adherence to law is not just a necessity, but a priority for the accomplishment of salvation.

I would agree, though I would clarify that the righteous nature of God is the heart of all scripture, second only to man's fallen condition.

And I think that the impression given that one group believes entirely toward one side and the other group to the other is just a result of defending one position or the other. Many that come across as legalistic, because they think that what you have stated above is not understood by those that belive in sole fide, would, if they were honest, admit that they themselves cannot live in perfect accordance to God's righteousness, thereby disqualifying themselves even as they seek to "teach others," and this usually by rude behavior...lol.

For the most part agreed, though, I think if I am reading your posts correct, we may hold different views concerning the law of God written upon man's heart. I believe that all men have this knowledge, yet, one thing is lacking in him that is not present until salvation, that being the indwelling of God, so that now, not only is this general knowledge made clear to him, he has the added benefit of having the ability to do the things which fall in line with the nature of God.

While we see the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament throughout the covenants, we focus on the distinctions of the promises within the New Covenant, and see that God is indeed doing a new work in the lives of men.

If that work were as it were under the previous ministry... neither would there be a need for a new covenant, nor would it be called new.

Enjoyed the read. There are a few things I would probably take issue with, but, for the most part, I think we are near in our understanding, and, I look forward to looking at where we might differ, because I do not claim to be expert in knowledge on this subject, and am glad to have the input of one that is obviously well studied on this issue.

Again, I am unfamiliar with the teachings of "paedobaptist CT," and while it is very interesting I am sure, I am more interested in how you understand the New Covenant at this point.

I believe that sometimes we are directed to a better understanding of doctrine through the errors of others, and can see how their understanding has influenced your current beliefs. But, it your belief and the basis for that belief, primarily the scriptural basis, that interests me.

Concerning the statmenet above, I would not take the view that they succeed one another in the sense that they incorporate specifics, but that they do not anull each other...that I believe.

For instance, if we try to make the promised land speak of only Canaan, or, if we deny that this promise has fulfillment in three way: 1-Canaan; 2-Millennial Kingdom; 3-the eternal state...we limit the fulfillment of God's promise and how we might view this one covenant in regards to all others.

Take the "rest" which is promised: where do we see this fulfilled? Would we deny fulfillment in Canaan? In the MK? In Christ?

I would consider all to be true, yet, we can see it fulfilled in a number of ways, each in no way nullifying the other.

And sorry, got too longwinded here, will have to continue...