The New Covenant

Of course we would view the realization and receiving of our glorfied bodies as "more advanced," however, the latter is guaranteed if the former is in fact reality.

Similarly, we would view the unborn child just as human as the child born, and while the child born is "more advanced" than the unborn, he is not "more advanced" as a human, they are both human though at different stages of growth.

By "Old Covenant" I assume you are speaking of the Covenant of Law, and will answer accordingly: the answer being...yes.

But, so was the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic.

And...so is the New. The New Covenant which I believe we as the Church partake of does not grant instant glorification, though positionally our sins are forgiven and we are declared "perfected forever," better viewed as "we have in completion received remission of sins and stand in a position of being declared forgiven.

While we await the redemption of our bodies, we are still the sons of God, His children. We have eternal life, not, we will have eternal life. We have the life of God when we are saved.

Not sure I would agree with that: Christ was born for the express purpose of offering Himself to atone for man's sin.

He was sinless, not subject to the penalty of law, nor is it conceivable that He could have become subject to death and the penalty for sin.

We can hypothetically speculate, but there is no need: Christ would not, and did not, fail to do that which He manifested among men to do.

He was raised in a glorified body, the first to do so.

All believers will be raised in a similar body, which will not be subject to death.

I would add that the unjust will also be raised in bodies suited for eternal punishment, though they are bereft of the life of God as they were when physically alive.

Yes. However, they are not subject in the spiritual sense to death, which takes on more meaning in scripture than a cessation of life. Which I am sure you are aware of.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is part of the New Covenant. This is one reason I believe the New Covenant to be in operation in the life of the Church.

As with Abraham, we do not participate in the New Covenant by "giving our agreement" to God, therefore bringing it to bear. The Mosaic Covenant had an if/then connotation, though God knew well in advance that man would fail to keep this covenant. And just as God promised Abraham that he would have many descendants, and that the world would be blessed through "One descendant," we see that the New Covenant is the work of God in the lives of men despite their efforts.

Whereas under the Old, conviction is ascribed to the Law, the written word of God, and in the New, conviction is through the very indwelling of God. I am a firm believer that it is this convicting ministry of God which ennables men to understand God's word (which is the Gospel today, the Holy Spirit speaks of Christ, Who saves) and leads him to first belief, then repentance, then a seeking for forgiveness through the shed blood of Christ.

Christ was not in need of eternal life, He was in need in a means of transferring to man that which he could not attain himself, which was eternal life.

Because of man's sin, his chances for eternal life were non-existant. When the Son of God manifested in the flesh in order to die in man's place, at that point, and not before, man was given the power to become the sons of God.

While it is true in realization believers have not received their glorified bodies by which it could be said, "We will die no more," we have positionally already received eternal life.

Before salvation...no life.

After salvation...we have life.

Please provide verses you feel relevant.

Not really sure what you are saying here.

It seems you are saying that Christ heard of the promise of Himself, was obedient to death, and was therefore given the Holy Spirit, by which He now gives us the Spirit.

I view Christ and the Holy Spirit as One, and see Christ's promise to return as fulfilled in part in the giving of the Comforter. We are said to have the Spirit of Christ, which Paul can rightly say, because God is One.

But, before His death and the coming of the Comforter, man was, I believe, devoid of the permanent indwelling of God, though He, God, the Holy Spirit did indeed work in the hearts of men before the Cross and Pentecost.

But it begins at the moment of salvation.

John 14

16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


We see this realized at Pentecost:


Acts 1

4And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


Now John spoke of two baptisms as well:


Matthew 3

King James Version (KJV)

11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


The fire I view as a reference to judgment, which the context clearly defines. The baptism with the Holy Spirit is "the promise of God" Christ refers to in Acts 1, I believe.

Even as He promised here:


Ezekiel 36

King James Version (KJV)

27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Throughout John 13-16 we see reference to the Holy Spirit coming and can see clearly that the disciples did not understand at this time that which Christ taught. But, when the Holy Spirit comes, they immediately set out to preach Christ.

We have, by reason of the Holy Spirit, already received of this promise.

Israel, on the other hand, still awaits this, and it will be realized in the Millennial Kingdom.

When we look at the teaching of the New Birth in scripture, we can see that it, and associated aspects are received in the body we currently have, such as eternal life, the indwelling of God, and a new nature. We are become new creatures, not we will become new creatures.

The New Covenant will be fully realized in the eternal state, but, we can see in the New Testament that we partake of the New Covenant already.

Consider the promise of God to Abraham, that his descendants would inhabit a particluar land. This was realized in the conquest of Canaan, hwowever, it will be realized more completely in the Millennial Kingdom, and beyond that...in the eternal state.

God bless.

 

I have a few friends that are PD, and while we disagree on a few points, such as pre-trib versus post-trib, and viewing Michael as being Jesus Christ, i will say that a few of them give a reasonable presentation of the basis for their belief.

Probably my favorite brothers to debate, because we do have so much common ground, in regards to salvation, the Trinity, and other issues, which makes the intricate matters all the more interesting when comparing notes.

I am aware that PD views the New Covenant as fulfilling the promises of God, but not aware that it is held that the New does not replace the Old.

Hebrews alone will show that the Old Covenant has been made obsolete, giving wat to the New ratified by the blood of Christ.

The First Covenant was not capable of bringing completion to the fatih which began in the Old, though it was in fact able to bring man to faith and show him his absolute dependance upon God.

The New, because it is better, shows that it is different from the Old, not merely the Old refurbished and renovated.

Could you be more specific, Van?

God bless.

 

I would agree.

By default, all New Covenant Doctrine could be labeled "New Covenant Theology," and I myself believe that we cannot have a balanced view of salvation and the New Testament (the collective books) if we divorce what scripture teaches concerning the New Covenant.

On the contrary, many passages become all the more clear (such as Galatians 3, which has now been suggested reading twice) when we recognize that the New Covenant underlies what the passage is teaching.

God bless.

 

Again, this is a thread hopefully devoted to discussing THE New Covenant...lol, not "New Covenant Theology" or other groups going under a label.

The question is...where do these distinct groups have common ground concerning biblical doctrine, and how important is that common ground to all of us...as the body of Christ.

So far I have seen those that lean heavily toward a preterist view voice a belief that the New Covenant is in fact in operation today. Frankly, I was a little surprised, but pleased to find this common ground.

I have PD aquaintances where I am in disagreement in some areas, but as a unified front we stand on other issues such as the Trinity and the security of salvation.

If we examine the New Testament, and seek to understand the New Covenant as found there, we may be surprised to find that the New Covenant is spoken of quite frequently in the New Testament.

I agree.

But that is one of the things that I have learned...I don't have to hate those that don't agree with me on everything...lol.

Which is what the goal of this thread is: to examine and discuss, in a brotherly manner, an issue that is often overlooked and seldom spoken of.

God bless.

 

I will not say all of them hold to this (it is like any other group, there will be variance in belief), but some view references in scripture to "Michael" as references to Christ.

That He is called an "Angel" in more places than the usual "Angel of the Lord" passages.

For instance:


Revelation 10

1And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

2And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,


This is viewed by some to be a reference to Christ.

As is this:



Revelation 12:7

King James Version (KJV)

7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,


Now, when you take the time to see why they believe this, at least those I have spoken to, you will hear a very reasonable presentation.

Myself...I believe these are Angels...not Christ.

God bless.

 

Galatians 3

Galatians 3

King James Version (KJV)

1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Most would recognize Paul's teaching against a legalistic faith wherein adherence to the Law takes precedence over faith in Christ.

What is that faith? That He died for our sin specifically, taking upon Himself...our judgment.

After two chapters dealing with that, Paul asked pointedly: "Did you receive the Spirit by keeping the Law, or was it because you heard the Gospel?"


3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?


He asks another question to underscore he is not just talking about how they received the Spirit, but, how they are being "perfected," which here speaks about the quality of daily conversation (lifestyle): "Now that you have entered in to this salvation...are being conformed to the image of Christ through keeping the Law?"


4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

"You have suffered for your faith...was that in vain? Perhaps you have only just been externally righteous, through keeping the law."


5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


"Did the minister of the New Covenant by which you heard the Gospel and witnessed miracles...preach the keeping of the law to you, or the Gospel?"


6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.


"Just as Abraham was considered righteous, not through the keeping of law, but because of his faith."

7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.


Likewise those who have faith and belief are related to Abraham in this regard.

I can read this passage and see that contrasted here is the law and faith in Christ, two distinct and separate systems of belief. Built in to this rebule is an absolute repudiation of the belief that keeping the law can bring one into relationship with God, nor does it assist in the "perfecting of the saints."

I will stop there for comment.

God bless.

 

I did, actually. Well spoken.

lol...which I usually try to stress to people, seldom do we find those of a particular group in agreement in everything.

In the other thread, I would love to see the Pastor mentioned come to this board and answer for himself...I believe there might be some surprises in store.

Here is something that you might find of interest, it was posted (quoted from theopedia) by a member as I guess a doctrinal statement of NCTers:


Here is a brief overview of Covenant Theology (from Theopedia):


Quote:
Covenant Theology (or Federal theology) is a prominent feature in Protestant theology, especially in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, and a similar form is found in Methodism and Reformed Baptist churches. This article primarily concerns Covenant Theology as held by the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, which use the covenant concept as an organizing principle for Christian theology and view the history of redemption under the framework of three overarching theological covenants: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. These three are called “theological covenants” because although not explicitly presented as covenants, they are, according to covenant theologians, implicit in the Bible.

In brief, Covenant Theology teaches that God has established two great covenants with mankind and a covenant within the Godhead to deal with how the other two relate. The first covenant in logical order, usually called the Covenant of Redemption, is the agreement within the Godhead that the Father would appoint his son Jesus to give up his life for mankind and that Jesus would do so (cf. Titus 1:1–3).

The second, called the Covenant of Works, was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam and promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. Adam disobeyed God and broke the covenant, and so the third covenant was made between God and all of mankind, who also fell with Adam according to Romans 5:12–21.

This third covenant, the Covenant of Grace, promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God’s word. It is thus seen as the basis for all biblical covenants that God made individually with Noah, Abraham, and David, nationally with O.T. Israel as a people, and universally with man in the New Covenant. These individual covenants are called the “biblical covenants” because they are explicitly described as such in the Bible.

Covenant theology as a refinement of Reformed theology is evident among early Scottish theologians. For example, see The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, Chiefly of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (1872) passage: “The old theology of Scotland might be emphatically described as a covenant theology.”[1]

If I read this right this states that they do recognize a "Covenant of Works," thoguh again, that does not mean that individually adherents will express a personal belief of this covenant, as you have testified.

But isn't that usually the case...lol.

I usually tend to get nervous (lol) when people mention the "Moral Law" of God.

I feel that we can find balance the doctrine of scripture and understand that basically, the righteousness of God stands forefront, and all that fails to replicate that righteousness is sin.

I would have to understand what intent is behind the term "Moral Law," that is, according to each individual, before saying too much.

It seems to me that those that would again bring into bondage others to the First Covenant use this term to separate specific statutes and ordinances found in the Law with others, in an attempt to "prove" that the First Covenant is still in force in the lives of believers.

We can understand that we are still responsible to live according to the righteousness of God as expressed in the scripture, which precedes the First Covenant, and understand we have been given His Spirit in order that we might accomplish that, but...we have to separate, I believe, the first from the New, completely.

We cannot, I believe, "blend" the two, in order to keep intact the continuity of the covenants, that is just unnecessary.

Most would agree that the understanding of sin in light of a better understanding of it is far more advanced than that which man had under the First. For example, we do not view ourselves guiltless of adultery because we refrain from a physical act, but because we understand "morality" better, we are convicted by knowledge of the lust of the eyes, which holds us as guilty as those that commit the physical act.

And, sorry Steve, having some distracction here, so I hope my thoughts are showing a continuity...lol.

I have speant many an hour, perhaps days on this one issue alone. Based upon the word "new," it is proposed that the New Covenant is a refurbished Old, or First Covenant.

I reject that outright.

The First may have pictured Christ, but did not have Christ, for example.

The First brought remission, but not perfection, or, completion.

And I think I would be found to be in agreement with that, though particulars would have to be discussed.

I believe the New Covenant satisfies all of the promises of those that came before them. Nothing is taken away, yet, we gain more knowledge as revelation progressed.

I believe the eternal state will be the end result of God's redemptive work on behalf of man, each covenant working toward that end.

God bless.

 

Hello DaChaser1, and thanks for joining in.

Agreed that we are now under the provision of the New Covenant, to be sure, however, as to the remnant of Israel, I hold that they are actually waiting in the wings, so to speak.


Romans 11

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,


5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


The contrast here is between those who are saved, and those that nave not been.


7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.


13For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

14If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.


Speaking to Gentiles concerning National Israel, Paul says much concerning their "blindness." As we see elsewhere, Paul would cast himself away in oder to save his fellow countrymen. Now, he says this:

While this time centers around Gentile inclusion and salvation, we see that there is coming a time when "the fulness of the Gentiles comes in," which most would conclude that at this point, something is going to happen.


26And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

We would not dispute that this is written post-Pentecost, so a general reference to Israelites being saved cannot be what is in view.

We see that The Deliverer will come out of Sion (though we already know that He has) and shall turn ungodliness away from Jacob, which I look at as the beneficiaries of God's promise. Not Israel divided, the houses of Israel and Judah, but Israel reunited and restored by and through the Deliverer...Christ.


27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


Significant is the fact that the promise of the New Covenant falls within Paul's teaching, for that is what Israel lacks at this point, relationship with God under the provision of the New Covenant. That is why this is mentioned, separating those from Israel who come under this Covenant before the fulness of the Gentiles comes, from those who will come under it at an undesignated point in time...in the future.


28As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

Again, "God has not cast away His people."


29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.


This applies to His promises concerning Israel.



30For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.


Basically, just as Gentiles have been shown mercy, and that mercy presents itself in the form of salvation for those who in the past have not believed, even so, Israel in unbelief will also be shown mercy.

So I view the remnant as those who will, in the future, receive mercy just as Gentiles have.

I believe this also.

Quite a discussion could emerge from that statement...lol, but let's stick with the topic, the New Covenant.

It's duration? In my view...unending. We receive that which is promised to Israel, which they have not on a National basis received.

When the Millennial Kingdom, the kingdom promised to these people, is established, "all Israel will be saved," due to the fact that all those not saved in Israel (the people, not the land) during the tribulation will be "gathered up," "taken," meaning, they perish physically, leaving only redeemed Israel to enter into that Kingdom.

27For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Hebrews makes it very clear that the ministration of the First Covenant has ended, and that the New is established.

We need not concern ourselves with those that would blend the two, for it is doubtful that any amount of instruction will affect the motivation for this view. Only God can reveal to us the things that are found in scripture and bring a balance to the ministry of God in the lives of men, and we should lay aside our concerns for the beliefs of others, and focus on what it is we believe. I myself think that the blending is a result of a motivation to replace the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers with their own ministry which finds others in great need of examining themselves, rather than scriptures command that we examine ourselves.

Self examination for obvious reasons begins with self examination. While I can attempt to discuss scripture with others, concerning the spiritual condition of men, there is but one that I am approved of God to judge, that is myself.

It is common that a legalistic view almost always carries with it a preocupation with the sins of others, while it seems oblivious to obvious sin which is recognized by those that, because of the indwelling Spirit of God, recognize sin in our lives, and are compelled to put that sin away.

But that is one evidence of the failure of the flesh to fulfill the First Covenant, as we see in the picture presented to us concerning Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, the flesh has a difficult time recognizing and dealing with personal sin, whereas when God convicts our hears of sin, we seek to respond in obedience.

Thanks again for joining in,

God bless.

 

Due to the teaching of Hebrews, we can be assured that the First Covenant will not be established...again.

When we read of the Millennial Kingdom in the Old Testament we see Levitical practice mentioned, and this might cause us to think that this means the First Covenant will be in effect during the Kingdom.

No need to conclude that, I believe, for we do not have to see Israel forsake her heritage, even as we do not adopt an Hebrew heritage and forsake our own when we are saved.

While it is debated as to whether there will be animal sacrifice in the Kingdom (I myself do not believe there will be), even if there were, it would not be as it was prior to the New Covenant, for the purpose of remission of sin, but would take on only a sense of memorial, even as we partake of Communion, the Lord's Supper.

When the Tribulation ends, we will see the fulfillment of Ezekial 36:

Ezekiel 36

King James Version (KJV)

24For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

28And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

29I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.


We see in this a description of the New Birth: cleansing, here said to be the sprinkling of water, in the New it is called the washing of the water of the word. And we know that faith cometh by hearing the word. This cleansing is for the purpose of removing idolatry, which, faith, belief, and worship of the One True God in spirit and truth is found in salvation through Christ.

We see they/we are given a new heart and spirit, as opposed to man's previous condition of being hard hearted (heart of stone) stiffnecked.

We see that God will put His Spirit within them. And we all would probably agree that the indwelling of God, said to be eternal, is distinct from His ministry in the lives of man pre-Pentecost.

While we experience these things now, for Israel, when the events described in such passages as Matthew 24 take place, we see a mixture of both a time of judgment, and restoration taking place as well.

Another look at the restoration of Israel is in the next chapter:



Ezekiel 37

King James Version (KJV)

1The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,

2And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.

3And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest.

4Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.

5Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

6And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.


God reiterates what He said in chapter 36 (and elsewhere, though it can be argued reasonably that we can see a temporal context in certain passages that speak of immediate fulfillment):


13And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

14And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.


This does not, in my view, speak of the general resurrection of the dead, but of Israel's restoration and beyond that the promises of God fulfilled in them.

I firmly believe that Israel will come under the New Covenant when they are delivered through the Tribulation to enter into the promised Kingdom.


God bless.

 

If you mean am I a member of a group that goes by the name "New Covenant Theology," no, I am not. I am a member of an independant fundamental Baptist Church.

If you ask does "New Covenant Theology" (meaning that which is taught in the New Testament/foretold in the Old) play a part in my personal beliefs, then the answer is yes, because we have too much information given in scripture (the New Testament) for me to believe that we can disassociate the doctrine taught there from our theology.

We have to either have a view as to how it applies to our faith, or we have to avoid it altogether.

I see no contradiction in believing that the New Covenant was established by Christ (we remember this every time we partake of Communion) and understanding that resurrection is taught to have several distinctly different times as well as the events of those resurrections themselves.

In regards to the New Covenant applied to Israel, we can from prophecy and the promises of God understand that Israel will one day receive a temporal Kingdom in which Christ will rule. At that time, they will be grafted back in to the covenantal provision God has declared for them.

That does not preclude a belief that this New Covenant is not already enjoined by the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile.

Take Matthew 24, for instance. We cannot reconcile that with the Return of Christ as expressed by Paul. The differences between the two cannot, in my view, be reconciled. Neither can we look back in history and see fulfillment of Christ's teaching there, and we keep in mind that Christ had not just a ministry to all of mankind, but in order to "fulfill the law," He had a ministry to fulfill concerning Israel. I do not view God's dealings with Israel to have been fulfilled yet, but they will be in the Tribulation and the Millennial Kingdom.

Have to get going, but I would ask, is there something that you see concerning the Rapture and the New Covenant as contradictory? That one cancels out the other?

I will try to check back later,

God bless.

 

I would have to disagree with the stament in regards to the "First" and the New Covenant on this point: when Hebrews speaks of the First Covenant, it is clear that this Covenant had its beginnings in the law (a prominent theme of contrast to the New Covenant and associated work) and we are given a clear understanding that it is Levitical Practice which is in view...not a "general Covenant" that had application concerning the time before Christ.

While I would not necessarily dismiss one's beliefs to that effect, even as it seems NCTers hold a similar position, We cannot conclude from Hebrews that any other covenant other than the Covenant of Law, specifically, the Mosaic Covenant, is in view.

When the writer seeks to contrast the Priesthood of Christ with that of others, it is a pre-law Priest which is given for an example. He is contrasted specifically with the tribe of Levi, which we would all agree has a beginning that does not extend to the foundation of the world.

God bless.