Featured Should we read our Bible?

Noah was not a Jew. Job was not a Jew. Neither of them was ever under the Old Covenant.

Equating the Old Testament (the set of the first 39 canonical books) with the Old Covenant is a false notion.

The Noahic Covenant was not the Old Covenant. The New Covenant did not make the Noahic Covenant obsolete--it is fully still in force.

Etc.

 

You can't float about tasting Bible teachers; you have to come down and land somewhere. Otherwise you're like the people spoken of in 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
My church is about to employ an Assistant Pastor. He was raised in a 'broad evangelical' church, with charismatic tendencies. At some point, he came to understand Reformed theology and to believe that it was true.. Feeling a call to teach he has gone to a seminary that he knows will teach what he believes so that he will be better equipped to pass it on to others.
I believe that he is absolutely right in this. To go somewhere that might teach the very things that he had rejected would be pointless in the extreme. Moreover, the sort of churches he would want to call him will enquire, as we did, at a seminary that teaches what we believe.

 

I don't often disagree with you, Salty, but I do here.
The OT is the Scriptures that testify of Christ (John 5:39). We should be looking to find Him in every corner of the Bible And yes, 'All Scripture is [God-breathed] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

My church is currently preaching through Ecclesiastes, and yes, it's challenging, but if we don't find Christ there, we are just preaching philosophy.

 

The Old Covenant is obsolete, meaning it has been replaced by something else. The Old Covenant does not alter or make changes to the New, but the New makes the Old Covenant obsolete.

Thus when studying the OT, what matters is how it shows us our sinful state and predilections, which then teaches us that we face the consequence of sin, therefore leading us to our Savior, Jesus Christ..

To claim they are the same, thus both still apply as our Covenant is poppycock.

 

Just a quick not the meaning of the word translated "new" in Hebrews 8:8 and 8:13. The Greek word (kainen - G2537) does not have the primary meaning of temporal newness, i.e. something recently made, but rather a superior replacement of something older. So when we see "New Covenant" think replacement for the flawed first Covenant, rather than just a new one.

 

"There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old. God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever. The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

The first covenant was ADDED (casting a shadow of the good things of the Everlasting Covenant behind it):

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.....Gal 3:19,

And then it was removed:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:7

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery."

Christocentric Theology (New Covenant Theology): The Big Nothing Burger | Page 9 | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)

 

LOL, the New Covenant replaced the "flawed" first covenant, that is why the "New" covenant is "superior" to the obsolete one.
The claim, no matter how often repeated, that they are same is poppycock.

Hebrews 8:7
For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.

 

Your claim, that I'm claiming the two are the same, is poppycock.

 

LOL, yet another taint so, but nothing said about what is different. It never ends folks,...
How about a list of the faults, plural, of the first Covenant? I expect crickets.

 

Now back to the OP... Should we read our Bibles?... If we didn't we would have nothing to argue about now, would we?... Brother Glen

 

Lol, Van, performing for his imaginary spellbound audience...

 

I think the Apostles believed that the New Covenant was best understood through the lens of the OT.

The best camera’s have multiple lenses… so we get to use both OT and NT to learn from.

Rob

 

Just what are the different "spiritual tenets" of the New Covenant? Did Deacon or Kyredneck or Tyndale disclose them? Or was the subject redirected.

Deacon took issue with: "The Old Covenant does not alter or make changes to the New, but the New makes the Old Covenant obsolete." He said the opposite, that the "New Covenant was best understood through the lens of the OT. Most folks do not replace a new part with an obsolete part, but some think the idea has merit.

Were those who obtained approval (Hebrews 11:2) given access to the Law via their indwelt Helper? Nope. We they made perfect? Nope. Without an indwelt Helper, could they grow, and understand spiritual meat, solid food? Nope. Did they have an intimate relationship with God, thus did they "know" God? Nope. But, once the New Covenant in His Blood was inaugurated, then those who had "died in faith" were taken from Abraham's bosom, washed in His blood, made perfect and began the General Assembly in Heaven. Hebrews 12:23.

Hebrews 11:13 (NASB)
All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen and welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

 

I’m guessing you meant to say prayerfully. It would be a primary point.

 

As Scripture, the OT anticipates the NT; the NT accesses the OT. One will understand the NT much better knowing the OT. One will understand the OT much better knowing the NT.

But if one could only have one, hands down the NT would have to be that one.