Featured the redemption of Israel

I have kept up with this thread for the most part. I have not seen where you demonstrated that Israel was redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, or at least they knew they were being redeemed by the blood of the lamb.

They knew they were being justified by faith, as Paul's testimony of Abraham states in Romans 4:1-5. But nowhere does Paul indicate that Abraham understood he was putting his faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

John says:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
--The entire book of John was written to emphasize that salvation was by faith in Christ and Christ alone. Have you demonstrated that the OT saints had an understanding of the shed blood of Christ?

 

You are seeing what these clown posts are about...
:laugh:.....jump all over the place, spam the board, look to jump on words as you say, deny historically held truth for novelties, ship over verses without dealing with the truth in them, :sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

So DC......you have never heard of the teaching of the Covenant of Redemption?

Could you explain it?

Could you explain how the other covenants are related to it?

Or you deny it exists?

Really curious. ..as you contradicted yourself in post 64 .....I said all the redeemed are saved because I feel the Covenant of Redemption. .......your reply was.......no one said they weren't. .....three lines down you suggest there is no such Covenant.

 

In posts 11to19. Both of you got it wrong....nothing has changed....you still have it all wrong.

 

You have nothing of substance to say Icon. I wonder why you post at all.
If you can answer what I asked of BW:

 

And the truth is that each person who has been saved or will be saved is saved only through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. That death was initially promised after the rebellion of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15. Admittedly the promise is vague and without the remainder of Scripture we would have remained in ignorance. Nevertheless, that promise is really all that is needed for GOD is faithful and cannot lie.

Note that this promise is made before there was any mention of Noah, Abraham, Israel. Jew, or Gentile. GOD has always had A people on earth and when HE brings time to a close HE will dwell eternally with HIS people in the New Heavens and New Earth! People prior to the Flood were saved the same way people are today; only by the Grace of GOD!

 

I have answered you from the start of the thread till now. Those who want to learn and interact....do so. Your failed responses about lk 1 have not gone away.you failed to answer 1 Cor 10....the two of you make snide comments but never quite fact the real.issues.
Your denial saying it has nothing to do with the issue ....everyone has seen through that.

Other than DC....NO.ONE SEEMS INTERESTED IN YOUR POSTS....why is that? You say you have a different understanding but I do not see your thread revealing what you believe...why is that?

 

That is what I got from OR and others on this sight. It just takes staying out of the fray and keep posting what you believe as truth, that is what Christ would have us to do.

 

All of Israel was redeemed ca 33AD by Christ dying on a cross and resurrecting from the dead on the third morning.


All of Israel shall be saved and not one will die lost. The true biblical Irraelite are those who have been circumcised in their hearts and not foreskin. It is those of the promised Seed, Christ, that make up the true biblical Jews.

 

Your quite welcome.

You forgot to thank me for complimenting your address of my response.




God bless.

 

Hey...wake up!

Were you baptized into Moses?


God bless.

 

What is your Scripture?

I have asked you to support your rabbit trail.

I have asked you to address the Scripture which makes it clear that there is a point in time when Christ came, eternal redemption was obtained by Him, and the Mystery of the Gospel was revealed.

Didn't happen in the Old Testament, when the People of God were Israel, and atonement was obtained through animal sacrifice.

I can explain that the Redemptive Plan of God has been consistent from the Garden, that the Elect were known to God before the earth was formed, and that until the New Covenant was established men were not eternally redeemed, but awaited redemption and perfection in Christ.

And while one might call that a Covenant of Redemption, it does not change the fact that God established distinct Covenants at distinct times. The Abrahamic Covenant, which is but part of God's Redemptive Plan, was established on a specific day with specific sacrifices. The New Covenant, which was established with a Specific Sacrifice on a specific day is the temporal culmination of all of the promises of God to the faithful.

And there is nothing in anything I have said that denies God's Covenants and Promises. Only in yours.

And not one person of Israel was eternally redeemed...every member that has ever been inducted into the Church is.

Again you refuse to address the points which have been made, and seek to obscure those points with rabbit trails.

I have tried to warn you before, Iconoclast, that when you are refusing to address a point it is going to force you into the duck and cover position you are in now. The longer you avoid facing Biblical truths like these, the longer you will be forced to spew nonsense which eventually backs you into a corner.

Now here is a corner to visit:

...were you baptized into Moses?

See above.

Now back to the focus, and I will ask...was the Mosaic Covenant part of your Covenant of Redemption?

Was the Mosaic Covenant a distinct and separate Covenant from all others?

The answer would be yes to both, in that the Law was a schoolteacher to bring us to Christ, thus can be viewed, though established due to sin, as part of God's redemptive plan which has been progressively revealed since the Garden.

And without question the Mosaic Covenant was distinct to all others, as Galatians and Hebrews, and pretty much every Book of the New Testament testifies.

What is your Scripture? How am I supposed to know what you mean by this? You pretty much butcher everything else, so why would I agree or disagree with something you have not declared.

What is your Scripture?

No contradiction on my part. I have already drawn a distinction between the use of "saved' and "redeemed" in church "circles," and pointed out that we have to carefully maintain the context of the usage of these words.

So I'll take a look, since you do not bother to quote what it is you speak about, but, as you do with Scripture, give only vague mention so it doesn't interfere with what you want to believe.

And having reviewed, it seems that you did not benefit from the discussion.

Let's look at it, and I will highlight the issues you are ignoring, and comment within the quote (in green, if I can get the coding right):

No-one has said it wasn't.


What is certain is "redemption for all of God's elect," not because of the "Covenant of Redemption," which is an apt description for God's Redemptive Plan. And just as I did not say "Israel was not covered by the blood of Christ," even so I have not said that the eternal destinies of the faithful of Israel and those prior to the Law were not secure.

No-one said it wasn't.

What was said is that it was not until Christ died that Eternal Redemption was obtained for us. And that through the Blood of Christ...not the animal sacrifices that were part of the Prior Economies.


Seems a simple point, but the very point you guys refuse to address.

We know that, but you are trying to argue that a "Covenant of Redemption" that you have imagined is somehow the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.

Look at your words:

No kidding...that is what you have been arguing against.

When were the promises made? When were they fulfilled?

Show me Eternal Redemption in the Old Testament.


The "Covenant of Redemption" you have imagined equates all covenants and will not be supported by Scripture.

The Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant are not a "Covenant of Redemption," but are distinct Covenants in distinct Eras/Ages.

The New Covenant is a distinct covenant in this Age, and was only promised in the Old Testament.

That is the point you refuse to address.

[/QUOTE]


God bless.

 

No-one is debating that.

Only false witness offered through misunderstanding has been offered in an attempt to defame.

What is in view is when people have been eternally redeemed, which itself can be seen as having been obtained by Christ when He came from Heaven, died, and rose again.

And prior to this the People of God was Israel.

This does not preclude faithful among Gentiles, but it was Christ which made one man of the Twain.

God's People offered up sacrifice of animals for atonement under that Covenant, the Church does not.

No-one is saying it wasn't.

But the key word here is...promised.

That promise was fulfilled in Christ, and this...when He came and accomplished the Work of the Cross.

I agree, the promise was vague, and that is exactly what the New Testament teaches. The Gospel of Christ was a Mystery. Gentile Inclusion was also a mystery.

And it is true, "without the remainder of Scripture we would have remained in ignorance."

That is an established fact that most will not argue. We do not equate our understanding with the understanding of the Old Testament Saint. We do not equate the protevangelium with the revealed Mystery of the Gospel.

Paul doesn't...why would we?

Agreed again: God will fulfill all of His promises to the jot and tittle.

But it is the fact that Redemption was a Promise in the Old Testament and a Reality in the New is what is being denied.

No-one of Israel was eternally redeemed. Every member of the Church is.

That is the focus of the thread.

Agreed.

The Promises of the Covenants prior to the New Covenant were all aspects of God's Redemptive Plan. For example, Abraham and his descendants understood God's promise concerning his seed to refer to descents, plural. We know it refers to The Seed, singular.

We see Christ confront those who believed themselves "saved" by heritage. They thought they had "Abraham as their father," when they needed to understand that God is the Father. They clamored for a king, rather than accept their King.

No-one is arguing that either.

There will be One Fold and One Shepherd, made up of the redeemed of all time.

But in view is when Eternal Redemption was purchased.

That was accomplished through the Cross.

Also agreed. No-one has been saved apart from grace through faith.

But it was not until Christ died on the Cross that He obtained Eternal Redemption for us.

And when He did that, the transgressions that were under the Law were...

...redeemed.

That is the heart of this Thread.


God bless.

 

You are the one doing that, and you have been told that numerous times.

You equate what Christ did to something not possible under Old Testament Economies. You diminish the magnitude of the Cross by equating redemption which was physical/temporal with Eternal Redemption purchased with the Shed Blood of Christ.

That is what you will not admit because of your dislike of a Theology System few of your antagonist even claim to embrace.

That is shameful enough, but to compound that shame by falsely accusing others of what you yourself are doing is pitiful.

Okay, one last attempt. Address the Scripture:



Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

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.



Israel was the People of God, and they were under the Covenant of Law. That is the Vine the Lord, the True Vine, contrasts Himself with. Atonement was accomplished through vicarious animal death. Entrance to God was limited to shadow, figure...parable.

Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant which has made the First Covenant, the Covenant of Law...obsolete.

Two distinct peoples, two distinct ministries, two distinct Ages.



Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;





God bless.

 

I have answered it and still await an answer to why you think unbelievers are "spiritual fathers?"

And if you were baptized into Moses?

I have addressed every comment you have made, and have had numerous questions and points ignored.

So has DHK.

The real issue is...

Funny that the OP cannot maintain a consistency in what she wants to focus on, but shameful that you intentionally dodge direct address of this issue.

Why do you think unbelievers are "spiritual fathers," and were you baptized into Moses?"

Please answer these questions, as it goes to the "real issues" you have imagined brining up.

I haven't seen that. I have seen an attempt to get both you and BW involved in the actual topic of the OP.

Which seems to have backfired a little bit.

You understand that you are admitting you are not interested in his posts, yet you give responses, right?

Think about that.

Possibly because you refuse to give a direct response to pointed questions and points which show your theology as in error?

That's not a guess, by the way, that is what the Public Record shows.

Now, again...

Why do you think unbelievers are "spiritual fathers," and were you baptized into Moses?"


God bless.

 

That is not what Christ had Paul do:



Acts 19:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


Galatians 2:11

King James Version (KJV)

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.



It is because Christians have fallen into a misconception that opposing false doctrine is not Christ-like that we find many Christians confused, and worse...themselves teaching false and erroneous doctrines.

There is a time when that kind of teaching must be withstood, and the truth of the Gospel presented in direct opposition with Scriptural support.

Now I ask you, would you admit that a conversation about the Rapture is almost always derailed into an argument about Theological Systems? To the point where usually the thread is shut down, or because of the disruption people lose interest?

Would you admit that there are people who are in the same place they were years ago, spewing the same vitriol, and being a source of disruption?


God bless.

 

And that, SG, is the very point I have been making since the Arguments for a Post-Tribulation Rapture Thread, which was derailed by the same people who disrupt every Rapture thread.

That is when He obtained Eternal Redemption for us.

No-one is arguing that there is not a "Spiritual Israel" who were the faithful of all Old Testament Economies.

What is argued is that there was not a physical and National Israel which were the People of God under Law.

Now where do you stand on that?

Was there a National Israel that was the People of God, which included both believers and unbelievers (in Contrast to Spiritual Israel)?


God bless.

 

You tried to tied Luke 1:67-73 to 1Cor.10. They are not related passages. You have to do better than that.

 

All Israel was not redeemed. Were Ahab and Jezebel redeemed?

The remnant of Israel will someday be saved at the end of The Tribulation when Christ comes again.