Covenants and Covenants

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by OldRegular, Dec 6, 2008.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Hebrews 8:6-9
    6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
    7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
    8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
    9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


    Dispensationalists will accuse me of saying that God lies but His Words seem pretty clear in Verse 9: because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    I regarded them not, saith the Lord. reinforces the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarded who not? That generation.

    You are far too willing to ignore and redefine Scripture to protect your own ideas. Consider this:

    Notice vv. 35-36 where God gives two conditions that will cause him to throw off his people Israel. 1) If the sun/moon/stars cease their fixed order. 2) If the heavens can be measured.

    Now I ask you, which of those has taken place? I say neither, which means God hasn't cast off his people forever.

    Notice furthermore that God says it twice for emphasis, and directly attaches it to their disobedience. He says he will not cast them off forever because of their disobedience. You say that he did cast them off for their disobedience. So how do you avoid attributing a lie to God?

    So now we ask, what do these verses mean that you cite. If you take them in context, they deal with the rejection of a particular generation. They cannot mean that God has taken his promises away because God said he wouldn't do that.

    This shows two things: 1) You are far too willing to ignore Scripture; and 2) You can't win this battle if you go to the text. Only by avoiding the text can you win.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    The following is taken from George Eldon Ladd's defense of Covenant Premillennialism [pages 20-27] taken from The Millennium, Four Viewpoints edited by Robert G. Clouse. This particular excerpt addresses the application of the New Covenant from Jeremiah 31 to the Church as demonstrated in Hebrews 8. I realize this may stretch Forum rules a bit but I only posted a small part twice.

    "Another very important passage applies a prophecy given to Israel to the Christian church. In Jeremiah 31 the prophet foresees a day when God will make a new covenant with rebellious Israel. This new covenant will be characterized by a new work of God in the hearts of his people. ”I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. . . For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:33-34).

    The book of Hebrews applies this to the new covenant made in the blood of Christ. Hebrews 8 contrasts the new order introduced by Christ with the passing order of the Old Testament. Christ serves in the "true tent," not in the old, for the old is but "a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (Heb. 8:5). Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant, which rests on better promises (Heb. 8:6). "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second" (Heb. 8:7). These words make it clear that Hebrews is contrasting the old covenant which was defective with a second which has been established by Jesus. "For he finds fault with them . . ." (Heb. 8:8), that is, God finds fault with Israel under the old order because they constantly broke the terms of the covenant. Therefore, a new covenant is necessary; and in describing this new covenant made by Christ, Hebrew's 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that this quotation refers to the new covenant with the people of God—the Christian church—the new covenant which has been made possible because of the sacrifice of Christ.

    Then, referring to the Old Testament cult, Hebrews concludes, "In speaking of a new covenant lie treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). It is impossible to tell whether the temple in Jerusalem was still standing (it was destroyed in the Jewish War, A.D. 66-70), for the exact date of Hebrews is in doubt. But one thing is clear: Hebrews announces that the old order of the temple with its sacrifices is passe.

    One of the central tenets of dispensational millennialism, based on its literal hermeneutic of the Old Testament prophecies, is that in the millennium, the Jewish temple will be rebuilt and the entire sacrificial system reinstituted, according to the prophecies of Ezekiel 40—48. However, there will be a difference between the millennial sacrifices and the Old Testament sacrifices. The millennial sacrifices will be a memorial to the sacrificial death of Jesus. "Those who consider the millennial sacrifices as a ritual which will be literally observed in the millennium invest the sacrifices with the central meaning of a memorial looking back to the one offering of Christ.". Any idea of a restoration of the Old Testament sacrificial systems, whether memorial or otherwise, stands in direct opposition to Hebrews 8:13, which unambiguously affirms that the Old Testament cult is both obsolete and about to pass away.

    Therefore Hebrew's 8:8-13 refutes dispensational theology at two points: It applies a prophecy to the Christian church which in its Old Testament setting referred to Israel, and it affirms that the new covenant in Christ has displaced the Old Testament cult which is therefore doomed to pass away.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't help but notice you quote Ladd but won't deal with Scripture. Isn't that telling?

    Why not deal with the whole New Covenant instead of just part of it?
     
  5. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    Do you actual understand of Christ said: "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."-Matt. 26:27b-28, what he was talking about?

    What is the 'new testament' means?

    Is the the 'new testament' now in effect?

    Whose of the 'new testament' apply to?

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I understand. He was talking about his blood shed for forgiveness.

    It is a new covenant.

    No, though some provisions of it are currently being enjoyed.

    According to the Bible, it applies to the house of Israel and the house of Jacob, whose fathers were led out of Egypt by God (Jer 31:31ff.). If you disagree with that, then you have to take it up with God. He's the one who said it, not me.

    Here is an article you need to read and study carefully before posting any further on this topic: Dispensationalism, the Church, and the New Covenant. Once you have read that, you will be in a position to interact more substantively with the issues at hand. Your questions and comments, heretofore, don't reveal much substance as to the real exegetical and theological issues at stake. Regardless of your position, you should at least be familiar with the issues.
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Larry had a bad habit of questioning my integrity when I posted Scripture so I posted some opinions of George Eldon Ladd [a Covenant or historic premillennialist] who pointed out the error of dispensationalism, making plentiful use of Scripture [I am afraid to say liberal use since it might be misinterpreted.]. Larry did not like that either. Contrary to Pastor Larry I would advise all to avoid the error of dispensationalism.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And where was that? I must have missed it. I don't think I have ever questioned your integrity. I have questioned your judgment, but that's a different matter. Don't attack me by saying I questioned your integrity. I never did any such thing. If you think I did, please show me where and I will clarify. I have no intention of attacking your integrity.

    You seem to think I don't believe the Bible. I think there are areas you don't believe the Bible. That's fine. We disagree. The discussion should be about Scripture.

    As I pointed out, Ladd refutes your position, so you don't like his use of Scripture either. But my comment about Scripture was about your lack of interaction with it. I can cut and paste stuff all day long, but that wno't interact with Scripture.

    It wasn't so much that I didn't like it, though I think it is pretty easy to refute (though not as easy as amillennialism). I just don't see the point of it.

    If you can show an error in dispensationalism that I hold it, I would like to avoid it as well. You haven't yet done that. All you have done is show that you disagree with it. You haven't shown that Scripture does.
     
    #8 Pastor Larry, Dec 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2008
  9. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    TIME OUT: I just have a question. About 70-80 years ago Clarence Larkin was one of the chief proponents of dispensationalism and came out with some 8 charts detailing the various stages. Are these still accepte in dispensational circles to-day?

    Thank you,

    cheers,

    Jim
     
  10. DeafPosttrib

    DeafPosttrib
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry,

    You don't believe that the new covenant is now being effect? So, therefore do you think Christ was FAILED to make a new covenant, then our hope are vain and worhtless?

    Isn't the new covenant include Gentiles? What happen to us today? Where are our hope now?

    In Christ
    Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are by some, but not by many I don't think. They are probably accepted more in the Bible college and non-academic dispensationalism.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, I notice you aren't dealing with the NC passages much. I have referenced the major one in Jer 31 several times. Why not deal with it?

    No and no. THe fact that the NC is not now in effect doesn't mean Jesus failed. That is a typical logical fallacy.

    No, not technically. Again, read the article and interact with it some, and then come back and post.

    Our hope is in Jesus and the forgiveness he secured for us through the cross.

    Perhaps think of it this way (even though all analogies fail at some point): I set out to water my grass so I set up my sprinkler and turn it on. Some of my water gets onto my neighbor's lawn and his grass gets watered to, even though I didn't intend to water his grass.

    Now, the analogy breaks down obviously, but I think the point is clear. The fact that God makes a NC with the Jews doesn't mean that we don't share in the benefits of the NC.

    This position is soundly defended in 46 pages in that article, along with a solid refutation of your position, so I won't take the time to repeat it here. Again, I encourage you to do the study, read the article, give it some thought and interaction. Don't just keep posting the same stuff.
     
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Larry said point out the error of dispensationalism. You have just pointed it out. If he believes that the New Covenant or New Testament is not fully in effect at the present time then as the Apostle Paul said we are of all men most miserable.

    In the Letter to the Hebrews we read

    Hebrews 9:11-17
    11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
    12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
    13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
    14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
    15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
    16. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
    17. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


    The above Scripture states that Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Testament [New Covenant] and that
    1. where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator
    2. the testament is of force after men are dead

    Now if only "some provisions of it are currently being enjoyed" as Larry claims did Jesus Christ only partially die on the cross. Will He have to die some more or again. In Hebrews 9:25, 26 we read:
    25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
    26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.


    By the way, Ladd in his discussion showed that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 applied to the Church. [Post #3 above] Of Course anyone who would take time for an unbiased read of Hebrews 8 would come to the same conclusion.
     
    #13 OldRegular, Dec 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2008
  14. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks pastorlarry, I just dug out my old clarence Larkin books and charts and was looking them over.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    If you are really interested LeHay has a book of charts out????
     
  16. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    OldRegular..Thanks...I was only interested because I have these books and charts, hangovers from my PLymouth Brethren days..That is my only interest..I resolved the dispensation issues around 1959.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  17. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    How so? Paul's comments were about the resurrection, not the NC. Read the NC in Jer 31 and tell us all the fulfillments of it ... every part. You should read the article and interact with all the OT passages that are referenced there.

    No dispensationalist disagrees with that.

    No of course not. You ever had a relative die? When they die, you might be the inheritor, but you don't get it all at their death. It has to go through probate, and debts and liens have to be satisfied.

    No Ladd didn't show that, and if you read Hebrews 8, you will see that the whole NC isn't cited. Did you ever wonder why? You should have. But you might not have ever realized it.

    Again, we see that if we look at Scripture, your position has a lot of holes in it.

    Did you ever read McClain's Greatness of the Kingdom?
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Ladds comments on Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8:

    "Another very important passage applies a prophecy given to Israel to the Christian church. In Jeremiah 31 the prophet foresees a day when God will make a new covenant with rebellious Israel. This new covenant will be characterized by a new work of God in the hearts of his people. ”I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. . . For they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:33-34).

    The book of Hebrews applies this to the new covenant made in the blood of Christ. Hebrews 8 contrasts the new order introduced by Christ with the passing order of the Old Testament. Christ serves in the "true tent," not in the old, for the old is but "a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (Heb. 8:5). Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new and better covenant, which rests on better promises (Heb. 8:6). "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second" (Heb. 8:7). These words make it clear that Hebrews is contrasting the old covenant which was defective with a second which has been established by Jesus. "For he finds fault with them . . ." (Heb. 8:8), that is, God finds fault with Israel under the old order because they constantly broke the terms of the covenant. Therefore, a new covenant is necessary; and in describing this new covenant made by Christ, Hebrew's 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that this quotation refers to the new covenant with the people of God—the Christian church—the new covenant which has been made possible because of the sacrifice of Christ.

    Then, referring to the Old Testament cult, Hebrews concludes, "In speaking of a new covenant lie treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). It is impossible to tell whether the temple in Jerusalem was still standing (it was destroyed in the Jewish War, A.D. 66-70), for the exact date of Hebrews is in doubt. But one thing is clear: Hebrews announces that the old order of the temple with its sacrifices is passe."


    Jeremiah 31:31-34
    31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
    32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
    33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


    Hebrews 8:8-13
    8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
    9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
    10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
    11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
    12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
    13. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
     
    #18 OldRegular, Dec 6, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...