I Have a Question about the New Covenant

God has had many different plans for dealing with humanity. Throughout Bible history man has been saved by Gods grace, through faith and obedience to the revelation given to him. Before the Cross, no one could believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but there hope was based upon their obedience to God to knowledge gained to that point.

Today we are not to try and keep the Mosaic law by water baptism, refraining from forbidden foods, etc, as MrJim pointed out, but to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Bible portrays Him, and that is all. Paul points out that to bring in other gospels, including the Messianic Jewish law, is wrong. Yet we even today, with the finished Bible in each of our homes refuse to acknowledge that. Even Peter had to be shown part of the new gospel by the great sheet display, showing that new rules are in effect.

Paul is our apostle for today, all the others were Kingdom apostles, charged with preparing Israel, and her alone, to receive her Messiah. The Kingdom never has come about, because of Israels unbelief, but God is faithful, and establish His Kingdom He will. But first, the body of Christ will be completed. And this age, the Body of Christ, the age of Grace, does in no way harm the Kingdom program, except to postpone it till God picks up with it later.

 

Enoch, Moses and Elijah, had no idea that God Himself would take on the form of man and go the the Cross. Are you stating that man today can enter heaven by believing what they did?

The new covenant brought to man for today was revealed to Paul over time, and that is what gives us our marching orders today. Enoch, Moses and Elijah, could no more understand this than fly.

 

We've been through all this before and you Baptist will not be convinced. And it's too bad. You desire truth, as long as it doesn't interfere with your preconceived ideas and traditions.

 

BobRyan is an SDA. And I am just a Christian. But I think Baptist would agree with what you have posted here. I do!

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Is this the part where you actually read Heb 11??

Is this the part where you tell us that knowing that the Messiah would be the "LAMB of God that takes away the sins of the world" was 'not the Gospel' and IS not "the Gospel"?

Is this the part where you tell us that "The Gospel was NOT preached to us JUST as it was to THEM" and that we should REJECT the words of Paul saying "the Gospel WAS preached to US JUST as it was to them also" Heb 4:1.

Is this the part where deny the fact that "There is ONLY ONE Gospel"?? (Gal 1:6-11 declares that denying this truth is pure error sir).

The NEW covenant was REVEALED at the VERY least to Jeremiah who STATES it and is quoted in Heb 8 as being absolutely correct!

However Paul states that it WAS also revealed to Abraham (Gal 3:7) and Christ said that "Abraham SAW MY DAY and WAS glad" John 8

Sounds like "another gospel" to me!

Try less emotion and more Bible fact sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hmm - I am an SDA Christian but you are "just a Christian" -- the Baptists are Baptist Christians but you are "just a Christian"?

Not going to church these days Steaver?? You may have explained why at some point but I don't recall what it is -- do you care to share?

in Christ,

Bob

 

I pop in here and there for a Sunday service. The organized churches in my area are wieghed down with tradition and dogma that I have trouble listening to. I thought about starting a fresh fellowship. Maybe I will call it Christians! That way it will be hard for outsiders to stereotype it. :laugh:

God Bless!

 

At some point you have to "believe something".

For example would SOME in your group of "Christians" be teaching that we should pray to the dead? Purgatory? Infant baptism? Jesus is not the Son of God?

Adam was not real? Creation account is not really true? There is no devil?

Universalism?

In other words - wouldn't it serve the group to stand for something more specific than "we believe in Christ"?

Hint: Church of Jesus Christ -- claims that as well.

in Christ,

Bob

 

i was telling my brother what i told you about calling ourselves Christians. He said, don't worry, they would find a way to label you something as soon as they found out your doctrinal stances.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

This is simply too contorted for me. The "good news" revealed to Moses is not the "good news" revealed to us today. There is an eternal gospel, that is Christ's blood saves us from hell. But Moses wasn't saved with that knowledge. He was saved by obeying God. His faith was demonstrated by obeying God. Today we are saved by believing in Jesus Christ and his finished work on the Cross. Baptism was a requirement for the twelve disciples, it is not for us today.

There are several different programs/dispensations of God's dealing with man.

 

Do you eat meat? According to some SDA's, it is wrong to do so. How do you account for that belief? What was the purpose and result of the great sheet revelation shown Peter?

 

The vision of the rats, cats, snakes and bats in Acts 10 was to illustrate the fact that Peter was not to consider the Gentiles to be unclean.

Three times Peter explains this point to others - and not once does he conclude "So let us now begin eating rat sandwiches".

The vision has nothing to do with vegetarianism it was given as a lesson about evangelism. Those who want to focus on eating rats and cats when reading about that vision instead of world-wide evangelism are missing the point entirely.

But why is this coming up on this thread?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Is this where you object to Heb 4:1 or is this where you argue that you refuse to believe it no matter what it says??

Hebrews 4
1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good news (gospel) preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.

Is that the argument that James makes in James 2 "you see then that a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" when he speaks of justification in the case of Abraham?

Are you saying that THEY were justified under a Gospel of works and we are under another one - a Gospel of faith??

TWO Gospels??

Might want to reconsider your theology.

How in the WORLD could James use Abraham as a model for US when it comes to justification IF that model is not in effect at all today?

Your two-gospel model is going to fall apart in the book of Galatians.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Whahuh?? You have "doctrinal stances"??

In that case - you will probably match up with some group that exists already. What do you think?

:jesus:

in Christ,

Bob

 

Exactly! My wife met some women down at the local resturant once. They were all "church goers" and in the conversation about church one asked her "what she was"? Kinda puzzled, she replied "a Christian". The woman looked at her like she was an alien or something and promptly replied that she was a Methodist!

Why do Christians want to label themselves according to men when the bible tells us not to do it?

Even in your case Bob. Why label yourself anything but Christian? Why allow others to put any other label on you but Christian?

Maybe Christians would be more united for Christ bearing greater fruits if we all agreed to drop the labels and not label anyone else.

Face it, even within each group or denomination you will have many different doctrinal stances. IN SPITE of any doctrinal statements of "what we believe".

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Do you eat meat?

 

Because when I meet a Methodist I don't say "wait you are Methodist not a Christian wouldn't you rather be a Christian?" those kinds of discussions simply don't happen. RATHER when I meet someone who says they are a Methodist I can get beyond "do you believe Christ is God or that the Bible is inspired in both NT and OT..." and go to points where there might be some interesting variation - at a minimum ask them about their views of Wesley.

I don't deny that there IS variation within any group but I don't expect Methodists to be teaching something about purgatory or prayers to the dead or indulgences and I don't expect them to have a good understanding of believer's baptism. I know what things to avoid that might be offensive to them and what things might be of mutual interest.

At least it is a better starting point than "generic Christian of some flavor as yet being hidden".

BUT if it were true that they were unique in their doctrinal view - then I would want them to say that they are unnaffiliated Christian with a "surprise" list of doctrinal views never known before.



in Christ,

Bob

 

yes. Why is that applicable to this thread?

 

My Mother and Father will tell you they are Methodist as well as many of my aunts and uncles. I have a few Presbyterians. Not one of them could tell you what their denomination stands for or whence it came from, not one! You know why they are what they are? Because that is where they was raised. They would never leave it for any reason because it is intrenched in family and you don't go against the family! I would say that few seek out doctrinal reasons for why they fellowship where they do and most are where they are because of family or friends. Most could care less about the things we debate here. They just put their "church time" in as if they done God a service.

God Bless! :wavey: