Featured Soteriologyish

Huh? Aren't "testament" and "covenant" synonyms?

Yep. They are inextricably linked.

"The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed."

 

I also believe the Covenant of Grace is an everlasting covenant. And that the gospel message is not the New Covenant except in its outward expression. And, according to Hebrews, the New Covenant was made with the same people the Old Covenant was made: Israel.

However, that is not the point. My point is that "testament" and "covenant" are the same thing. The words are synonyms. The New Testament is just another way of saying The New Covenant.

To say "the New Testament is not the New Covenant" is to say the New Covenant is not the New Covenant or the New Testament is not the New Testament.

 

I don't think anyone in this thread believes that every word of all 39 books of Genesis through Malachi is included in and integral to the Old Covenant (or any of the several covenants found in that portion of scripture) or every word of all 27 books from Matthew through Revelation is included in and integral to the New Covenant. And I can't help but think attributing such a belief to others may well be considered trolling by some of the participants in the thread.

It is important to note that the bible bears witness of ONE God.

It forms ONE continuous story.

It has ONE plan of salvation.

It has ONE central theme--the Lord Jesus Christ.

Genesis through Malachi records the Anticipation of Christ.

Matthew through Revelation records the Realization of Christ.

The Old Covenant was between God and Israel and thus did not exist (except in the mind of God) prior to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And it ceased to exist when Israel, as a Nation under the Law, ceased to exist.

The New Covenant was inaugurated by the death of the Testator, and will continue in effect until the consummation of the age.

As with so many "problems" just defining terms will often solve half the problem. Charles Kettering said: "A problem well defined is a problem half solved."

 

Please allow me to inject just a little mature wisdom into this discussion.

Jon, we all get posts "liked" and "disliked" and one poster gave me about 150 "Dumb" icons simply because he is emotionally immature and wanted to do something to express his dislike for me, personally.

The problem is, I don't care! And neither should you. Getting all bent out of shape because somebody "dislike"d your post is, I am sorry to say, just a bit juvenile.

Then why make an issue of it? If he was trolling you, didn't you respond to that trolling? Why, if you knew he was just trolling?

And therein lies at least part of the problem. You don't know what he didn't like about your post. You just assumed it had something to do with your generic statement regarding the Covenants. He may have been disliking your grammar. Or punctuation. Or word choices. The fact is, you don't know, and your disdain is based on your assumption not on what he actually did.

He disliked, for whatever reason, your post. He reacted, but he did not interact.

Nobody is pretending anything. He did not engage you in discussion in the forum. He simply "dislike"d your post. You have to stop letting it bother you so much.

Exactly. The buttons are there. We have to get used to getting "likes" and "dislikes" and even "dumbs" now and then.

The problem is, Jon, is that you make unwarranted assumptions about what others believe. I think, based on what has been posted (and on what has not been posted) all of us recognize where the OC is enumerated and where the NC is enumerated, and make no claim that all of either "testament" is all inclusive in either of those covenants.

Who, in this thread, holds to such a position?

Actually, Jon, both of those statement describe your assumption of IT's belief.

It certainly could, and even should, be considered heterodox, but who, in this thread, believes such a thing? Not your assumption, but their unequivocal statement.

It is not wrong of you to ask him anything you like. But he is not under any obligation to answer you. And, as he had not posted in the thread, he was under no obligation to respond to you in any way. He chose to give a minimal response. A "dislike." Until, and unless, he expands on his "dislike" to include what and why he dislikes something in your post, we really won't know, will we?

And maybe, just maybe, he was trolling you just to get your goat. And, from the number of your seemingly irate responses, he seems to have accomplished just that. With, it would seem, your cooperation.

Take a deep breath. Back off, and get a renewed perspective.

A couple days ago Squire closed a thread I was in. One of the posters had gotten under my skin and my responses reflected my frustration with that poster's - uh, well, uh, "lack of intellectual attainment." I thanked the Squire for doing so. I had lost perspective. He, wisely, helped me restore that perspective.

Hopefully I have helped you do the same.

Remember my old adage:

Know your friends.
Know your enemies.
Know the difference.

Now. Read completely through this post before you reply.

 

Six Hour Warning:
Some time after 3pm Pacific theis thread will be closed.