IF believer In Doctrines of Grace, Why baptists and NOT presby?

[convicted1]

Jeremiah 31:31-3
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


This was written in a future tense, for in verse 31 it says "the days come". In verse 33 it stated "after those days", which is referencing the days of Jesus ministry here on earth. After He ascended the last time, it is then, that everyone born again had the indwelling of the Spirit in a permanent manner.


Hebrews 8:10-13
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.


Apostle Paul is referring to Jeremiah 31 here, and is showing how Christ fulfilled it at the cross. Notice in verse 12, "and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more". Under the Law, there was a remembrance of their sins. Now, we who are saved, God sees us through the blood of Christ, with our sins blotted out. Not so under the Law. The Law was not faultless, because if it had, then Jesus died in vain.




Hebrews 10:9-18
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Here in chapter 10, Apostle Paul reiterates what he wrote earlier. Jesus came to set up a covenant between the ones He saves and Himself. Not the CHRISTians and Jews. There is but one covenant, and it is bewtixt Himself and the Church, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, etc.



Galatians 3:9-14
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


We have now received the same blessing that Abraham was promised by God.

Galatians 3:15-18
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


The promise that God made Abraham was to his seed, and not seeds. The promise is to the believer, whether they be Jew or Gentile. But the Jew much be converted to Christianity to obtain the promise. They can not be a practicing Jew, failing to believe that Jesus IS Christ, and be part of the covenant betwixt God and the promised seed, the Church, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, etc.

 

[DHK]

Jeremiah 31:31-3
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


This was written in a future tense, for in verse 31 it says "the days come". In verse 33 it stated "after those days", which is referencing the days of Jesus ministry here on earth. After He ascended the last time, it is then, that everyone born again had the indwelling of the Spirit in a permanent manner.

It was in the future tense. But "those days" have not come yet. If they have the Great Commission would not have to be preached. How do you account for verse 34? That hasn't taken place yet.

Hebrews 8:10-13

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.

Apostle Paul is referring to Jeremiah 31 here, and is showing how Christ fulfilled it at the cross. Notice in verse 12, "and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more". Under the Law, there was a remembrance of their sins. Now, we who are saved, God sees us through the blood of Christ, with our sins blotted out. Not so under the Law. The Law was not faultless, because if it had, then Jesus died in vain.[/quote]
He is referring directly back to the promises given to the Jews which will be fulfilled in the Kingdom. Certainly he died. He is the better sacrifice. It is their sins that he will remember no more. There are similar verses like that that apply to Gentiles or both Gentiles and Jews. But the context here is the nation of Israel.
Again, how do you account for verse 11? This has not yet taken place. It is yet future, "after those days."

Hebrews 10:9-18

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Here in chapter 10, Apostle Paul reiterates what he wrote earlier. Jesus came to set up a covenant between the ones He saves and Himself. Not the CHRISTians and Jews. There is but one covenant, and it is bewtixt Himself and the Church, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, etc.

Paul has moved on to a different topic. He has moved on from the promise of Jeremiah 31. Here he is contrasting the OT priest who ministers daily at the temple, offering daily sacrifices. He, writing to Hebrews tempted to go back to that OT system, describes Jesus, our High Priest forever, who after he offered one sacrifice forever, sat down on the right hand of the throne of God. What a contrast that is!

Galatians 3:9-14

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

We have now received the same blessing that Abraham was promised by God.

The emphasis in Galatians is far different than that of the book of Hebrews. Here he is contrasting law to grace, or better yet legalism to grace. The sect of the Judaizers had crept in and had led them away.
If they were going to be justified by the law they would have to continue in all the law from birth to death not breaking any of the law in their lifetime (3:10). If they did, but once, they would be cursed. (We, in reality, break the law every day.
But Christ was made a curse for us. He has redeemed us from the curse of the law. We are no longer under the law. For salvation is of faith not of keeping the law.

Galatians 3:15-18

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


The promise that God made Abraham was to his seed, and not seeds. The promise is to the believer, whether they be Jew or Gentile. But the Jew much be converted to Christianity to obtain the promise. They can not be a practicing Jew, failing to believe that Jesus IS Christ, and be part of the covenant betwixt God and the promised seed, the Church, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, etc.

The emphasis is simply that salvation is by faith. It was for the Jew (see Rom.4:1-5). And it is for us. The only kinship we can claim with Abraham is that we are his spiritual seed and that is all. Salvation is still by grace through faith.
However there will come a time when God will restore the Kingdom to Israel. That is not addressed here, but elsewhere.

 

[Ruiz]

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 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: (Hebrews 8:7-8)

Who was he writing to? He was writing to Jewish Christians, who because of persecution, were very tempted to go back to the OT. All throughout there is a comparison of the OT covenant to the NT covenant for that reason. Why would they return to something earthly when they have that which is heavenly?
The first was faulty. If it was faultless there would have been no need for another. But another is made.
Consider verse 8. It is both a quote and a promise. It is given to the nation of Israel. You cannot change the names of Israel and Judah without doing a terrible injustice to the text. It is a promise to those two nations that they again will become one in the Kingdom--a fulfillment of Jer.31:31-34. I had no intention of attacking anyone's position. I was simply expounding Scripture the way it ought to be expounded: comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not taking any out of context.

The difference between your interpretation and mine is that you take your interpretation of Israel and Judah and force it into the context. I take the context and interpret Israel and Judah.

You don't provide much exegesis of the context. The lead up to Hebrews 8 is clearly talking about the work of Jesus Christ and his first comeing. He mentions "a second covenant" and "a new covenant." When Hebrews 9 continues this line of thinking, the talk about the old Covenant of rituals is the the Sinaitic Covenant (Hebrews 9:1-10). Then he explains more fully the new covenant in Christ (Hebrews 9:15-22) as he does in the beginning of Hebrews 8. The quotation of Jeremiah 31 is encased with the focus on a new covenant language provided by the cross as noted in this quoatation

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.
(Hebrews 7:26-28 ESV)

and again in this quotation:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

(Hebrews 8:1-7 ESV)

All the context denotes a context of the work of Christ. This book was not written to Jews alone, but to Christians, and the understanding must be that they were redeemed people, redeemed by the work of Jesus Christ. He was not writing to them as Jews, but as people who believed in Jesus Christ.

You seek to turn the entire context on its head to maintain your understanding of two words.

He never mentions another future covenant in the context, but only two, the Siniatic and the New Covenant. The New is rooted in the redemptive work of Christ.

Your believe that our understanding of these two words must go against the entire context goes against exegetical laws.

My primary source material is the Bible, and I am currently studying through the Book of Hebrews. What other source material is there besides the Bible. The Bible speaks for itself. I said what I said out of my knowledge of the Bible, not out of anyone else's. The Bible interprets itself.
How do I know what you believe? There are all kinds of Calvinists on this board: some covenant and some not.

This is a "gotcha" quote but one that takes a phrase of mine out of context. You take a statement, twist it, and make your gotcha quote to show that you are superior, when you actually have not argument.

When I told you to read primary sources, I did so because you showed ignorance of Covenant Theology and our beliefs. You turned it around to show your "superiority" in using the Bible as your own primary source. First, the issue is not the primacy of scripture, which I hold to and clearly have demonstrated my belief several time son the board. Secondly, the issue was your ignorance of a theology which you misrepresented. Because of your misunderstanding of this theology, you misrepresent our beliefs.

Your "gotcha" answer shows that you think we don't put a high priority on the Bible. Quite the opposite, I agree with Spurgeon in saying that we put the highest priority on the Bible in that we are meticulous in studying the Bible, writing about the Bible, and in study of the Bible. The Bible is our primary source, but we wish to explain it well for everyone.

 

[DHK]

The difference between your interpretation and mine is that you take your interpretation of Israel and Judah and force it into the context. I take the context and interpret Israel and Judah.

I don't believe so. I continue to ask you for an explanation.

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: (Hebrews 8:8)
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. (Hebrews 8:11)
--But it appears that you have no explanation for these verses. I have given the context many times. I have given the explanation. There is no possible way that verse 11 has been fulfilled today; if so explain how, when, where, by whom? It is still future as is the rest of the passage.

You don't provide much exegesis of the context. The lead up to Hebrews 8 is clearly talking about the work of Jesus Christ and his first comeing. He mentions "a second covenant" and "a new covenant." When Hebrews 9 continues this line of thinking, the talk about the old Covenant of rituals is the the Sinaitic Covenant (Hebrews 9:1-10). Then he explains more fully the new covenant in Christ (Hebrews 9:15-22) as he does in the beginning of Hebrews 8. The quotation of Jeremiah 31 is encased with the focus on a new covenant language provided by the cross as noted in this quoatation

Yes he is comparing a new covenant with an old covenant, that is true. But there are some passages in there that are a bit more difficult than others and must be taken in the context in which they were stated, that is the OT from which they were taken.
The overall context is a comparison of the OT system to the NT system. There were Jewish Christians ready to go back to the Temple system, and he presents forth arguments why they should not do that.

All the context denotes a context of the work of Christ. This book was not written to Jews alone, but to Christians, and the understanding must be that they were redeemed people, redeemed by the work of Jesus Christ. He was not writing to them as Jews, but as people who believed in Jesus Christ.

The book is called the Book of Hebrews for a good reason. They were Jews, and they were redeemed. There are other books just like that. James is one:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1)
To the Jews which are redeemed.
Hebrews is no different. If you ignore this fact, this overall context then you will miss the meaning of the passage every time.

You seek to turn the entire context on its head to maintain your understanding of two words.

He never mentions another future covenant in the context, but only two, the Siniatic and the New Covenant. The New is rooted in the redemptive work of Christ.

You don't even try to explain Scripture that is in the future. You simply ignore it. When it is pointed out to you, you still ignore it. When Christ comes again he is coming for His People, the nation of Israel. This is one of those passages that alludes to that promise, a promise which is reiterated hundreds of times throughout the Bible. You cannot ignore the covenant made with the Jews. There is still a remnant. Now, having said that, that is not the major theme of this book. That was an aside, you might say, in chapter 8.

Your believe that our understanding of these two words must go against the entire context goes against exegetical laws.

No, I don't. I know what the New Covenant means. I also am aware of other promises made in Scripture which cannot be ignored. I am also aware of Scripture so often taken out of Scripture and being used to mean something that it doesn't mean. This is one of them.

This is a "gotcha" quote but one that takes a phrase of mine out of context. You take a statement, twist it, and make your gotcha quote to show that you are superior, when you actually have not argument.

When I told you to read primary sources, I did so because you showed ignorance of Covenant Theology and our beliefs. You turned it around to show your "superiority" in using the Bible as your own primary source.

You are absolutely wrong here. First notice the title of the thread. It is not about covenant theology. The conversation was about Presbyterian theology. Luke made the statement that "the covenant is one." I disagreed, and gave my reasons why.
Then you blamed me for misrepresenting the covenant position, when I hadn't done referred to the covenant position at all. I had only replied to what Luke had said, because according to Hebrews there is more than one covenant. So why falsely accuse me? Thus my position is simply the Bible.

First, the issue is not the primacy of scripture, which I hold to and clearly have demonstrated my belief several time son the board. Secondly, the issue was your ignorance of a theology which you misrepresented. Because of your misunderstanding of this theology, you misrepresent our beliefs.

I wasn't representing or misrepresenting anyone's beliefs; whoever "our beliefs" are, I don't even know. I responded to a post Luke made. I don't know what got under your skin. This thread isn't even about covenant theology.

Your "gotcha" answer shows that you think we don't put a high priority on the Bible. Quite the opposite, I agree with Spurgeon in saying that we put the highest priority on the Bible in that we are meticulous in studying the Bible, writing about the Bible, and in study of the Bible. The Bible is our primary source, but we wish to explain it well for everyone.

Again you are wrong in your assessment.

 

[Ruiz]

I don't believe so. I continue to ask you for an explanation.

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: (Hebrews 8:8)
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. (Hebrews 8:11)
--But it appears that you have no explanation for these verses. I have given the context many times. I have given the explanation. There is no possible way that verse 11 has been fulfilled today; if so explain how, when, where, by whom? It is still future as is the rest of the passage.

Yes he is comparing a new covenant with an old covenant, that is true. But there are some passages in there that are a bit more difficult than others and must be taken in the context in which they were stated, that is the OT from which they were taken.
The overall context is a comparison of the OT system to the NT system. There were Jewish Christians ready to go back to the Temple system, and he presents forth arguments why they should not do that.

The book is called the Book of Hebrews for a good reason. They were Jews, and they were redeemed. There are other books just like that. James is one:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1)
To the Jews which are redeemed.
Hebrews is no different. If you ignore this fact, this overall context then you will miss the meaning of the passage every time.

You don't even try to explain Scripture that is in the future. You simply ignore it. When it is pointed out to you, you still ignore it. When Christ comes again he is coming for His People, the nation of Israel. This is one of those passages that alludes to that promise, a promise which is reiterated hundreds of times throughout the Bible. You cannot ignore the covenant made with the Jews. There is still a remnant. Now, having said that, that is not the major theme of this book. That was an aside, you might say, in chapter 8.

No, I don't. I know what the New Covenant means. I also am aware of other promises made in Scripture which cannot be ignored. I am also aware of Scripture so often taken out of Scripture and being used to mean something that it doesn't mean. This is one of them.

You are absolutely wrong here. First notice the title of the thread. It is not about covenant theology. The conversation was about Presbyterian theology. Luke made the statement that "the covenant is one." I disagreed, and gave my reasons why.
Then you blamed me for misrepresenting the covenant position, when I hadn't done referred to the covenant position at all. I had only replied to what Luke had said, because according to Hebrews there is more than one covenant. So why falsely accuse me? Thus my position is simply the Bible.

I wasn't representing or misrepresenting anyone's beliefs; whoever "our beliefs" are, I don't even know. I responded to a post Luke made. I don't know what got under your skin. This thread isn't even about covenant theology.

Again you are wrong in your assessment.

Your problem here is that the context of this quotation is that it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ's first coming. You wish to parse Jeremiah 31, but you fail to see that the context by divine Inspiration refers it directly to Christ's divinity.

Yet, the author quotes the Jeremiah 31 again in Hebrews 10:16-17, once again relaying it to the work of Christ to bring redemption to his people

Even Ray Stedman, a dispensational author, states, "Though the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly applies this new covenant to the church." He still sees a future for Israel, but this dispensational commentator clearly believes the New Covenant is applied to the church. Stedman continues and says

The second provision is equally remarkable: I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord, " because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. Every true Christian also knows the inner sense of belonging to God in a new way. God is no longer seen as a stern Judge, but a loving Father. Believers are no longer outside the community of faith as aliens or exiles. They are now members of a family. They discover that whenever other members of the family are met, they too know the Father just as they know him. This new intimacy with God and his children becomes the bedrock of emotional stability in the Christian's experience. Notice how John develops this in 1 John 2:9-14.

This is the case, in the Old Testament where not all Israel was Israel (Romans 9:6).

Thus, even Dispensational commentators acknowledge the context mandates this to be a present reality.

You are arguing a couple of "debated" verses in order to argue your point. However, the context is glaringly clear, this is talking about Jesus' redemptive work.

I think this is a clear case of eisegesis, where the entire context says one thing, but you take a few verses to say another.

 

[DHK]

Your problem here is that the context of this quotation is that it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ's first coming. You wish to parse Jeremiah 31, but you fail to see that the context by divine Inspiration refers it directly to Christ's divinity.

Yet, the author quotes the Jeremiah 31 again in Hebrews 10:16-17, once again relaying it to the work of Christ to bring redemption to his people

Even Ray Stedman, a dispensational author, states, "Though the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly applies this new covenant to the church." He still sees a future for Israel, but this dispensational commentator clearly believes the New Covenant is applied to the church. Stedman continues and says



This is the case, in the Old Testament where not all Israel was Israel (Romans 9:6).

Thus, even Dispensational commentators acknowledge the context mandates this to be a present reality.

You are arguing a couple of "debated" verses in order to argue your point. However, the context is glaringly clear, this is talking about Jesus' redemptive work.

I think this is a clear case of eisegesis, where the entire context says one thing, but you take a few verses to say another.

It is hard to take those few verses and try to make them mean something that they don't mean isn't it? You don't have an answer for that yet do you?

 

[JesusFan]

JF,
I believe you are not correct here. You like Hebrews...look here;


Ot had both law and grace ... Nt has both law and grace....

Dispensationalism is a false system that seperates Jew and gentile. God has broken down the middle wall of partition.


DHK....the New Covenant is for gentiles also...hebrews 8 is fulfilled now.

There is One people of God, those who been elected out from humanity HGy His will, after His good pleasure BUT

There are timing issues involved here...

Kingdom postponed to national Isreal, so now in Church age, both jews/Gentiles are in body of Christ

Second Coming hapen Kingdom than shall be given to national isreal

So jews/gentiles partake new Covenant here and now in Church Age, jews alive as national isreal at time of Christ receive their promised Earthly Kingdom, while jes/Gentiles before that receive heavenly One!

 

[Ruiz]

It is hard to take those few verses and try to make them mean something that they don't mean isn't it? You don't have an answer for that yet do you?

Again, one of your "gotcha" statements. I took someone who is against my view, who supports your own, and he agrees with me on this exegesis. The entire context agrees with me. Your gotcha statements are uncalled for. When I can quote dispensational scholars who agree with my interpretation, and you resort to gotcha statements, you really have made this more about you than about the topic. It is not about me making this say something it is not, it is about you who ignores your own scholars.

 

[JesusFan]

Again, one of your "gotcha" statements. I took someone who is against my view, who supports your own, and he agrees with me on this exegesis. The entire context agrees with me. Your gotcha statements are uncalled for. When I can quote dispensational scholars who agree with my interpretation, and you resort to gotcha statements, you really have made this more about you than about the topic. It is not about me making this say something it is not, it is about you who ignores your own scholars.

The New Covenant was given to the Church after isreal refused her Kingdom, now in Church age of grace, both saved jews/gentilesunder NC in the Church, when jesus returns to earth, Kingdom than delivered to national isreal, and Jews come under at that time promised Kingdom gby God in OT to them as a peoples...

 

[DHK]

Again, one of your "gotcha" statements. I took someone who is against my view, who supports your own, and he agrees with me on this exegesis. The entire context agrees with me. Your gotcha statements are uncalled for. When I can quote dispensational scholars who agree with my interpretation, and you resort to gotcha statements, you really have made this more about you than about the topic. It is not about me making this say something it is not, it is about you who ignores your own scholars.

What do you mean, "ignoring your own scholars"? Who are "my" scholars?
I don't agree with everything Steadman teaches, never did.

 

[DHK]

Having just said that, I will quote Wiersbe who seems to lay down the various positions:

The “better covenant” that is referred to in this paragraph was announced by the Prophet Jeremiah (Jer.31:31-34). The promise was given in a prophecy that assured the Jews of future restoration.
What, then, is the relationship between this New Covenant promised to Israel, but today experienced by the church? Or, to state it another way, how can God promise these blessings to the Jews and then turn around and give them to the church?

Some Bible students solve the problem by concluding that the church is “spiritual Israel” and that the new covenant promises therefore belong to “Abraham’s spiritual seed” today. That believers today are the “spiritual seed” of Abraham is clear from Galatians 3:13-29; but this is not the same as saying that the church is “spiritual Israel.” The promise quoted in Hebrews 8:8 specifically names “the house of Israel and…the house of Judah. Once we are permitted to make such plain words as “Israel” and “Judah” mean something else, there is no end to how we might interpret the Bible!

Other students believe that this “New Covenant” has no present fulfillment in the church, but that it will be fulfilled only when the Jews are regathered and the kingdom is established at our Lord’s return to earth in glory. But then we have the problem of explaining Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24, verses that state that Jesus is today the Mediator of the New Covenant. To affirm that there are two “new covenants,” one for Israel and one for the church, is to create more questions!

The church today is made up of regenerated Jews and Gentiles who are one body in Christ (Eph.2:11-22; Gal.3:27-29). All who are “in Christ” share in the New Covenant which was purchased on the cross. Today the blessings of the New Covenant are applied to individuals. When Jesus comes in glory to redeem Israel, then the blessings of the New Covenant will be applied to that beleaguered nation. Read all of Jeremiah 31 to see what God has planned for Israel, His people.

Wiersbe does not leave out Israel. He recognizes the promises that are still to Israel.

 

[JesusFan]

Having just said that, I will quote Wiersbe who seems to lay down the various positions:

Wiersbe does not leave out Israel. He recognizes the promises that are still to Israel.

promises that God made to spiritual Isreal, redeemed/saved out jews are found in New Covenant today, as those messianic Jews part of Body of Christ, but God also will make good promised he made to natural Isreal, in the coming Kingdom to earth established when messiah returns!

 

[convicted1]

It was in the future tense. But "those days" have not come yet. If they have the Great Commission would not have to be preached. How do you account for verse 34? That hasn't taken place yet.

I've got some news for you Brother DHK. The great commission is what fulfilled(or the beginning of the fulfillment) of verse 34. In the OT, the people only heard God through the speaking of the Prophets. Now, they hear of God by the working of the Spirit.

He is referring directly back to the promises given to the Jews which will be fulfilled in the Kingdom. Certainly he died. He is the better sacrifice. It is their sins that he will remember no more. There are similar verses like that that apply to Gentiles or both Gentiles and Jews. But the context here is the nation of Israel. Again, how do you account for verse 11? This has not yet taken place. It is yet future, "after those days."

Psssst!!! I've got a little secret to tell you, Boy, it's a humdinger, too. Come closer and I will tell you. This will be between you and me. The Kingdom is already prepared. Please do not take this as being snotty. I am trying to bring a little levity, so that if we disagree, it will not be in a contentious manner. But the Kingdom is already prepared.


Luke 17:20-21
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.



John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.



Jesus has the Kingdom ready. When God tells Him to go get the Bride, He will come and get her, and take her to that glorious place already prepared.

Paul has moved on to a different topic. He has moved on from the promise of Jeremiah 31. Here he is contrasting the OT priest who ministers daily at the temple, offering daily sacrifices. He, writing to Hebrews tempted to go back to that OT system, describes Jesus, our High Priest forever, who after he offered one sacrifice forever, sat down on the right hand of the throne of God. What a contrast that is!

Jeremaih 31 is already fulfilled. The problem is, people want to take an OT passage, and pin it on a yet unfulfilled prophecy. The OT was looking to Jesus coming the FIRST TIME. If the OT was talking about something that was to happen at His second coming, when He hadn't even come the first time, well, that's putting the theological cart before the theological horse. OT scriptures were looking towards the cross, not His return in the Cloud.

The emphasis in Galatians is far different than that of the book of Hebrews. Here he is contrasting law to grace, or better yet legalism to grace. The sect of the Judaizers had crept in and had led them away.
If they were going to be justified by the law they would have to continue in all the law from birth to death not breaking any of the law in their lifetime (3:10). If they did, but once, they would be cursed. (We, in reality, break the law every day.
But Christ was made a curse for us. He has redeemed us from the curse of the law. We are no longer under the law. For salvation is of faith not of keeping the law.

Correct. However, we, Spiritually speaking, have the same promise that God made Abraham. Look at what God told Abraham. Thorough Sarah, she would bring forth a huge nation(me paraphrasing here). She could not do this naturally herself. God fulfilled this by sending His Son to die for sinful man. Those who are saved, become Jew "spiritually". This is where we got the same promise that God gave Abraham. The promise was to seed, and not seeds. If God had a plan for both the Gentiles, and the Jews(natural Jews that is), the promise would be to two seeds, and not one.

The emphasis is simply that salvation is by faith. It was for the Jew (see Rom.4:1-5). And it is for us. The only kinship we can claim with Abraham is that we are his spiritual seed and that is all. Salvation is still by grace through faith.
However there will come a time when God will restore the Kingdom to Israel. That is not addressed here, but elsewhere.

Israel in the OT was talking about the twelve tribes of Israel/Jacob, and not the nation over there in the middle east. The only way the Jews can get into the Kingdom, is through Jesus Christ. This world is going to melt with fervent heat, the heavens will roll up like a giant scroll, the heavens will pass away with a great noise, etc. All of these show me that this world is going "bye bye" when the end of time comes to this place.

 

[Iconoclast]

There is One people of God, those who been elected out from humanity HGy His will, after His good pleasure BUT

There are timing issues involved here...

Kingdom postponed to national Isreal, so now in Church age, both jews/Gentiles are in body of Christ

Jf...this does not say postponed...it says taken from you....

43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Second Coming hapen Kingdom than shall be given to national isreal

The books you read say that....the scripture says we are in the Kingdom now....not a "mystery form " of the kingdom.


So jews/gentiles partake new Covenant here and now in Church Age, jews alive as national isreal at time of Christ receive their promised Earthly Kingdom, while jes/Gentiles before that receive heavenly One!

Again...that is what premill books say...but not what scripture says.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK,

What continues to amaze me is that the people who attack covenant theology are ignorant of our beliefs.

Take, for instance, your first sentence. There is not a Covenant Theologian who would disagree with what you stated. However, I think you make the statement based upon your misconception and ignorance of our position on that verse, what it refers to, and the ramifications entailed. Thus, when we have to address issues like these, we must first engage in re-education of your misconception.

As for Jeremiah 31, saying this in no way applies to us goes against Hebrews 8 which quotes Jeremiah 31 and applies it to our current situation. The Author of Hebrews personally applies the house of Israel and the House of Judah to the New Covenant. The attack on our position must first go through Hebrews 8 which denotes that Jeremiah believed it was talking about the New Covenant in Christ.

Your two attacks never deal with either issue. First, you attack our belief in complete ignorance of our actual belief and yet, you never did address our actual belief. This shows you do not understand our side of the argument. Secondly, you assume Jeremiah 31 cannot refer to the new covenant, but you never address Hebrews 8 which seems very clear that Jeremiah 31 does refer to this New Covenant.

You may want to pick up some primary source books on our actual beliefs, it would help you to actually argue against our belief system and not some shadow of a system that we don't actually believe.

Nice post brother......DHK is locked in a "system' that will not allow him to see outside of its walls. he lacks basic understanding of any other view...his mistaken use of replacement theology shows he does not understand the full scope of what happens in the gospel.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus is not the true Israel.
What I gather from that statement is either you believe in the heresy of replacement theology, or salvation is for the Jews, and you are lost and excluded from salvation. Which is it?
If the kingdom is going on now, according to Jeremiah 31, as quoted also in Hebrews 8, then why haven't all peoples of the earth heard the gospel and have had a chance to respond to it. You don't take this Scripture seriously do you?

Yes, that is what John 3:16 and verses like 1John 2:2 teach, as well as many others, but that is not what Hebrews 8 and Jer.31 teach. To take Scripture out of context and torture it as you have is to do a great injustice to the Word of God.

DHK....
your complete lack of understanding here is why you cannot see what the scripture teaches...when you make this statement:

Jesus is not the true Israel

You will never see the truth if you cannot grasp this......


You mention "replacement theology"......we believe in expansion theology...perhaps you do not understand this...so instead you come up with charges of heresy...or injustice instead of examining your error.
this is another area where you are far from truth....what you say you believe does not resemble most anything the scripture teaches.....but you just plow stright ahead. Ruiz and others have offered you good teaching to examine , but you do not seem to be able to process it...:type:

 

[convicted1]

promises that God made to spiritual Isreal, redeemed/saved out jews are found in New Covenant today, as those messianic Jews part of Body of Christ, but God also will make good promised he made to natural Isreal, in the coming Kingdom to earth established when messiah returns!

Sorry Brother, but you are stating a promise to two different seeds, or two promises made to two different seeds. The promise was to Abraham's seed, not seeds.

 

[Berean]

DHK had a good point on prior discussion thread...

why would one choose baptist over presby IF hold to DoG?

There is not a presby in my town.

 

[DHK]

I've got some news for you Brother DHK. The great commission is what fulfilled(or the beginning of the fulfillment) of verse 34. In the OT, the people only heard God through the speaking of the Prophets. Now, they hear of God by the working of the Spirit.

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. (Jeremiah 31:34)
--You are absolutely wrong. This statement is written as an event that is yet to take place, not a work in progress. Where would you get that idea, and what would give you the idea to allegorize Scripture so much?
--They shall teach their neighbor no more.
--They shall no more teach every man saying "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest.
--Your statement indicates that you may be an ammillenialist. I am not. Things are not getting better and better; they are getting worse and worse. Don't you ever listen to the news or read a newspaper?
Every man does not know the Lord. This is a fact. These things have not taken place and your philosophically based theology cannot answer this.

Psssst!!! I've got a little secret to tell you, Boy, it's a humdinger, too. Come closer and I will tell you. This will be between you and me. The Kingdom is already prepared. Please do not take this as being snotty. I am trying to bring a little levity, so that if we disagree, it will not be in a contentious manner. But the Kingdom is already prepared.

No doubt, Christ is preparing a kingdom. That kingdom will be for both Jews and Gentiles. But as Paul says: "So, then, all Israel shall be saved."
And John says:
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)
--He is coming for the Jews to set up his kingdom. We also will be a part of it. We will rule and reign with him. The thrust of Jer.31 is the restoration of Israel.

Luke 17:20-21

20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

He was speaking to the Pharisees who demanded external evidences of a physical kingdom. Jesus was emphasizing that his kingdom is spiritual. He said the same thing to Herod. My kingdom is from above.

John 14:1

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Jesus is about to go to the cross. He is saying some comforting words to his disciples. He will prepare a place for them. They will be with him there, at the same place where he will be.

Jesus has the Kingdom ready. When God tells Him to go get the Bride, He will come and get her, and take her to that glorious place already prepared.

The next prophetic event in God's historical timeline is the rapture. At the time the bride of Christ will be raptured. Yes, he will take his bride to that glorious place that he has prepared.

Jeremaih 31 is already fulfilled. The problem is, people want to take an OT passage, and pin it on a yet unfulfilled prophecy. The OT was looking to Jesus coming the FIRST TIME. If the OT was talking about something that was to happen at His second coming, when He hadn't even come the first time, well, that's putting the theological cart before the theological horse. OT scriptures were looking towards the cross, not His return in the Cloud.

Jeremiah 31 is only fulfilled in part just as Joel's prophecy as quoted by Peter in Acts 2 is only fulfilled in part. Many prophecies have more than one fulfillment. If verse 34 is fulfilled we would see it fulfilled, along with all the promises given in Isaiah 11, but we don't see that either do we? The same thing goes in Mat.24,25, where both chapters have verses that apply to the rapture, the Tribulation, the Second Coming and the Kingdom. They all don't simply apply to one event. If you can't differentiate between the different events being spoken of then you are in trouble. The same principle applies here. You must be able to divide the word of God "rightly."

Correct. However, we, Spiritually speaking, have the same promise that God made Abraham. Look at what God told Abraham. Thorough Sarah, she would bring forth a huge nation(me paraphrasing here). She could not do this naturally herself. God fulfilled this by sending His Son to die for sinful man. Those who are saved, become Jew "spiritually". This is where we got the same promise that God gave Abraham. The promise was to seed, and not seeds. If God had a plan for both the Gentiles, and the Jews(natural Jews that is), the promise would be to two seeds, and not one.

That is a lame argument, as either way "seed" would not be used in the plural. It simply isn't used that way when speaking of genealogies.

Israel in the OT was talking about the twelve tribes of Israel/Jacob, and not the nation over there in the middle east. The only way the Jews can get into the Kingdom, is through Jesus Christ. This world is going to melt with fervent heat, the heavens will roll up like a giant scroll, the heavens will pass away with a great noise, etc. All of these show me that this world is going "bye bye" when the end of time comes to this place.

Yes, that will eventually come to pass, but not until a thousand year millennial kingdom occurs first--a kingdom promised to the Jews. There the Jews will be restored as a nation.

 

[convicted1]

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. (Jeremiah 31:34)
--You are absolutely wrong. This statement is written as an event that is yet to take place, not a work in progress. Where would you get that idea, and what would give you the idea to allegorize Scripture so much?
--They shall teach their neighbor no more.
--They shall no more teach every man saying "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest.
--Your statement indicates that you may be an ammillenialist. I am not.

Yes I am amil, and proud of it too. The OT was fulfilled when Jesus hung, bled, and died on the cross, and was risen, and ascended back to the Father. And I am absolutely right. The likes of Lahaye and his "Left Behind" series, has distorted the view of the end times. When Jesus comes again, He will do so in the cloud. We will rise to meet Him in the air. He isn't coming to set the Kingdom up here. I hear all the time, that Jesus and His angels are coming to fight satan here, and then the Kingdom will be set up here on earth. Look, when Jesus rose that third morning, victorious over death, hell and the grave, He defeated satan right then. Satan isn't fighting a losing battle, he is fighting a LOST battle.

Things are not getting better and better; they are getting worse and worse. Don't you ever listen to the news or read a newspaper?
Every man does not know the Lord. This is a fact. These things have not taken place and your philosophically based theology cannot answer this.

Where and when did I ever say things are getting better? I sure haven't. According to all that is going on, it won't be long until Jesus returns. And my theology is not "philosopically based" either. This stuff didn't get started until a teenage girl(13?) came and told some people that she had a dream that Jesus was coming back twice. Well, they went and read and came up with "theology". I wished I could remember the name, and the link where I read one time that a man who was prominent in the "dispy" teachings recanted everything he wrote on his death bed. I honestly read this, but that has been over two years ago, or more.

No doubt, Christ is preparing a kingdom. That kingdom will be for both Jews and Gentiles. But as Paul says: "So, then, all Israel shall be saved."
And John says:
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)
--He is coming for the Jews to set up his kingdom. We also will be a part of it. We will rule and reign with him. The thrust of Jer.31 is the restoration of Israel.

I won't be part of it here. I will gone back to glory as this world dissolves like snow in summer. Look at what is stated in Rev. 1:7 you posted. He is coming in the clouds. He isn't coming down here. He is coming, lifting us out of this sin cursed world, taking us home to heaven, while this world is destoyed.

He was speaking to the Pharisees who demanded external evidences of a physical kingdom. Jesus was emphasizing that his kingdom is spiritual. He said the same thing to Herod. My kingdom is from above.

Correct. His Kingdom is from above. He will come and gather us, and take us there, too.

Jesus is about to go to the cross. He is saying some comforting words to his disciples. He will prepare a place for them. They will be with him there, at the same place where he will be.

He said He was going to prepare a place for them. He then stated, if I go away, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself. That where I am, there you may be also. He was going to the cross, to make the way possible for them to go where He was going. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He made the way for them, and us, too. He also stated that in my Father's house ARE(present tense) many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you.

The next prophetic event in God's historical timeline is the rapture. At the time the bride of Christ will be raptured. Yes, he will take his bride to that glorious place that he has prepared.

Oh, you mean the secret event, where you can be talking to someone, and "poof" they're gone, and you won't know what happened? Another LaHayeism that has muddied the end times. If they are raptured out, then Christ must be coming back twice, huh? Jesus is coming back, but it is a one time event.

Jeremiah 31 is only fulfilled in part just as Joel's prophecy as quoted by Peter in Acts 2 is only fulfilled in part. Many prophecies have more than one fulfillment. If verse 34 is fulfilled we would see it fulfilled, along with all the promises given in Isaiah 11, but we don't see that either do we? The same thing goes in Mat.24,25, where both chapters have verses that apply to the rapture, the Tribulation, the Second Coming and the Kingdom. They all don't simply apply to one event. If you can't differentiate between the different events being spoken of then you are in trouble. The same principle applies here. You must be able to divide the word of God "rightly."

You need to give this some more thought, Brother. I am not being mean, but this "rapture" stuff is dividing us CHRISTians. I can tolerate a lot of things, but if someone comes to my home church, and begins preaching this stuff, I will sing him down thisquick. People like Darby, who started it, and LaHaye, who keep fanning the flames, have distorted the end times view.

That is a lame argument, as either way "seed" would not be used in the plural. It simply isn't used that way when speaking of genealogies.

Talk about "wrongly dividing the word? The promise was made to Abraham's seed(singular), and not seeds(plural). How much more plain can that get? If there is a covenant with the Church, and a seperate one with the Jews, you either have one promise for two seeds, or two promises for two seeds. Either way, thay aren't correct. The promise is for the bride of the Lamb, the body of Christ, the Church, of which, Christ is the Head.



Yes, that will eventually come to pass, but not until a thousand year millennial kingdom occurs first--a kingdom promised to the Jews. There the Jews will be restored as a nation.[/QUOTE]