Are we living under the New Covenant??

[skypair]

For you and grasshopper,

I agree with you Grasshopper, for God cannot lie and the new covenant was to come to Israel, and the Gentiles were grafted in. We did not replace them, we became as one for it is no longer Jew or Greek, but one.

So now dispies make God a liar. Great! Does it ever occur to you that God has NOT finished His program with ISRAEL?? You see them "cut out" but you don't see them "grafted back in??"

So, the new covenant is come that was according to God, made to Israel, but we the Gentiles live under it, but Israel is cut off. I thought God's gifts and calling are irrevocable (TC)............ God said He would make this covenant with Israel, can God lie???

YOU, child, are IMPATIENT with God.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

So now dispies make God a liar. Great! Does it ever occur to you that God has NOT finished His program with ISRAEL?? You see them "cut out" but you don't see them "grafted back in??"

I see a branch broke off, but the elect were saved.

Again, the Covenant was with Israel and Judah period. We were grafted in and if it were already gone, then there would be nothing to be grafted in to.

Can God lie??

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Well, when you said we need to take the whole scripture, you fail to do so.

Balonie! You equate all Israel with all scripture and say TC doesn't account for the "whole??!"

How do you know that is what it means, why does it not mean the fullness of when salvation has come to the Gentiles, which has already happened.

Uh, try "CAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT." Why are YOU being so obtuse?

Sorry, TC, for answering for you but BBOb is playin' space cadet lately.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Balonie! You equate all Israel with all scripture and say TC doesn't account for the "whole??!"

Ham! You fail to understand what "whole" is, the whole scripture.

Uh, try "CAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY THAT." Why are YOU being so obtuse?

Sorry, TC, for answering for you but BBOb is playin' space cadet lately.

skypair

You first, you made the statement when the last gentile came in, how do you know. Did you just make it up as you go???

 

[skypair]

I see a branch broke off, but the elect were saved.

Again, the Covenant was with Israel and Judah period. We were grafted in and if it were already gone, then there would be nothing to be grafted in to.

OK, who is "Israel and Judah?" Are you them? Where among the Jews do you see them in the gospels and epistles? Did they even all accept Christ?

And "a" branch broken off? Which one, Bobby?

Your arguments are so irrelevant to scripture I'm not sure I should even answer you if I didn't hope to help unify the body of Christ "in the knowledge and faith of the Lord Jesus." Eph 4:13.

[poster WARNED to keep civil or keep quiet]

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

OK, who is "Israel and Judah?" Are you them? Where among the Jews do you see them in the gospels and epistles? Did they even all accept Christ?

Shows your lack of understanding of the epistles. Who do you think made up those early churches, all Gentiles??

And "a" branch broken off? Which one, Bobby?

Take you pick. Nothing but scriptures.

Rom 11:17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; pay particular attention to "and with them".

Your arguments are so irrelevant to scripture I'm not sure I should even answer you if I didn't hope to help unify the body of Christ "in the knowledge and faith of the Lord Jesus." Eph 4:13.

Just for reference, where are you coming from??? What denom? What church?

skypair

So now you call me a devil.

 

[Brother Bob]

Don't take kindly to being called a demon by this post!

 

[saturneptune]

Don't take kindly to being called a demon by this post!

Brother Bob,
How are you doing? I believe he meant (or I hope he meant) denomination abbreviated.

Skypair, if you meant demon, you owe this man an apology. This is a true man of God, and you had no right.

 

[Brother Bob]

If Skypair mean denomination, then I misunderstood and apoligize.

BBob,

 

[pinoybaptist]

Brother Bob,
How are you doing? I believe he meant (or I hope he meant) denomination abbreviated.

Skypair, if you meant demon, you owe this man an apology. This is a true man of God, and you had no right.

In fairness, skypair said "what denom" are you from.
He didn't say demon.

 

[Brother Bob]

In fairness, skypair said "what denom" are you from.
He didn't say demon.

Thank you PinoyBaptist;

I already apologized for it in post 49

BBob,

Hey Pinoy;
I preached with one of those black preachers Sunday before last. I was called in a memorial meeting of all the deceased members of a church and the black preacher was there. He took quite a while too, but did good. He was not much of a doctrine preacher, but more of a exorter, and preached a lot on his family. I followed him and closed out the meeting. I like scripture myself, but look back through the house and see that several are enjoying it, so I guess it takes us all.

BBob,

 

[pinoybaptist]

Thank you PinoyBaptist;

I already apologized for it in post 49

BBob,

Hey Pinoy;
I preached with one of those black preachers Sunday before last. I was called in a memorial meeting of all the deceased members of a church and the black preacher was there. He took quite a while too, but did good. He was not much of a doctrine preacher, but more of a exorter, and preached a lot on his family. I followed him and closed out the meeting. I like scripture myself, but look back through the house and see that several are enjoying it, so I guess it takes us all.

BBob,

:thumbs:

amen to that, bbob...most of them black brethren are good exhorters.

 

[EdSutton]

You are wrong, there were only a few holding to the MK, and they were brought before the church for teaching it, including Justin.

BBob,

Don't you ever give up any of this stuff?? Why do you just keep blithely repeating it?? Even when a statement is shown to be a false statement?? I really do want to know.

Justin was never brought before any church council, good, bad, or indifferent, for teaching anything. (This is, I believe, the third time I have said this, FTR.) Nor were Polycarp, Tertullian, Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, et al. brought before a church council.

There was, in fact, no major "church council", of any sort, between the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 of around 50 A.D., and the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. That is a 275 year interval. (Justin was born in 100 A.D. and died in 165 A.D.) And even the next relatively minor one at Smyrna did not happen until 250 A.D., which was concerned with the rebaptism of heretics before being 're-received' into the local church.

Not even the presence of such notable heretics as Marcion, the Heretic, Simon Magus, Montanus, and Cerinthus, to name but four, nor the celebrated heresies of Gnosticism, Mithraism, and Sabellianism, to name but three, served to gather another church council. That would not happen until the teachings of Arius, where basically the teachings of those orthodox believers such as Papais, Tertullian, Ignatius, Hippolytus, Polycarp, and Justin and even Origen, were affirmed against those of Arius and some of his more extreme (than even he was) followers.

BTW, if you want a good example of modern day Arianism, consider the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as to the person of Jesus. Straight out of the playbook, 1700 years later! Jesus is the son of God, but not God, the Son, in their view, and less than God, the Father, in any 'JW' reckoning.

Historically, it (the Arain controversy and the Council of Nicea) was the difference between 'homoousias' and 'homoiousias'. Only one little Greek "iota subscript", the smallest of all the Greek letters (and only a third of the size in 'subscript' at that), of difference between the two. But exactly how big was that one little "iota"? The difference is whether Jesus was "of like nature (or essence)" as God, or only "of a similar nature (or substance)" as God. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you agree? The Nicea council declared Jesus to be "very God of very God", or one in essence with the Father, which is exactly who we believe He is.

Back to the point. It is well known, and easily found, for one who wishes to actually look it up, that the leading Apostolic and church fathers', when they did actually speak or write on this subject, mostly were all millenialists of one sort or another, except for Marcion, the Heretic, for the first two centuries A.D., and in fact, even some of those who were heretical in some areas, were in accord on this one, including Cerinthus, and Montanus, who were heretics, with those considered basically orthodox, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Papias, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, to name a few. Others are not as outspoken on this, including such as Igantius, and Polycarp.

Just to save myself further annoyance, (so as not to have to answer this when it will no doubt be tossed out, again) I'll mention, and yet once again, that Justin's "Apologies", the titles of his major works, are not written as "an apology" in the sense we would use the term today, but as Apologetics, in the sense of "a defense of the faith".

But it is ludicrous to keep on implying that these earliest "millenialists" were "brought before the church" when there was no such thing as a "church council" in operation, during any of their lifetimes.

One does not have to agree with what they taught [and be in "theological love" with one who is clearly a heretic (Marcion), and an Allegorist who would not even be born until 185 A.D. (Origen)] , but that alone does not give one any reason to attempt to re-write church history for a century and a half, after the Jerusalem Council!

BTW, none of this has anything to do with whether or not we are living under the New Covenant, FTR.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

There is earlier history than J.N.D. Kelly, it seems
Did the Apostle John call Cerinthus a liar???

The Millennium doctrine started in an ungodly heretic by the name of Cerinthus, who lived in the first century. It is true that the Jews generally believed that the Messiah would establish a literal or earthly kingdom. And even some of them believed that Messiah's reign would last a thousand years. We here give an extract from Neander's History of Christian Dogmas, Vol. 1, Page 248.

"The idea of a Millennial reign proceeded from Judaism; for among the Jews the representation was current that the Messiah would reign a thousand years upon earth. . . . Such products of Jewish imagination passed over into Christianity."
As before stated, Cerinthus was the first to attempt to introduce this doctrine under Christianity. Let history speak. In Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28, is preserved a fragment from the writings of Caius, who lived about the close of the second century, which gives us the following account of Cerinthus's heresy:
"But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom."
This is the true origin of the Millennium theory. The reader will observe how lightly our author speaks of Cerinthus's idea of the kingdom of Christ being set up on earth after the resurrection. He says this doctrine was
"something which he [Cerinthus] pretends was shown to him by angels."
Caius must therefore have believed the orthodox teachings of the scriptures, that Christ's kingdom was set up at his first coming. Observe also that Caius calls Cerinthus "an enemy to the scriptures of God," and one who was "wishing to deceive men." This language he uses with special reference to the one thousand years Cerinthus claimed would be spent in sensuality. Notice also that Cerinthus believed in an earthly kingdom.
Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John. We will now call your attention to the attitude of the beloved apostle toward this Millennial teacher.
Irenaeus, who was born about 120 A. D. and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of John,
[Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., V. 24], states that while John was at Ephesus, he entered a bath to wash and found that Cerinthus was within, and refused to bathe in the same bath house, but left the building, and exhorted those with him to do the same, saying, "Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth, is within."—Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., III. 28. ​

1. There were two strands of Chiliasm and Cerinthius is responsible for the perverted version:

"This doctrine was developed into what is called Chiliasm, which is basically the doctrine of so-called Premillenialism. Millennium is the term for a thousand years and there is also another term called a Chiliad and this also means a thousand years. But they were two separate terms. Chiliad was later applied to the doctrines of a thousand-year Millennium, which had excessive physical aspects to it. The Gnostics started to develop Chiliasm where there was an excessively physical and carnal form of living for the thousand years. It fell into disrepute because of the Gnostic writers."

2. In fact, Irenaeus and others, while being millennialists, were refuting the distortions of the Gnostics, who were promoting pleasures and nuptials festivals.

 

[skypair]

If Skypair mean denomination, then I misunderstood and apoligize.,

Denom - denomination, Bob. Sorry, I didn't even think about it the shortened form is used so much around here. :type: Anyway, what denomination am I dealing with in you?

I suppose by now you have noticed that there were "SOME" branches cut out -- not one.

Now, where were we?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Shows your lack of understanding of the epistles. Who do you think made up those early churches, all Gentiles??

All I can say at this point is the more you cite scripture, the more you err from the truth and I don't know how to discuss with your "wisdom."

I'm sorry. Maybe you will throw out a line" somewhere farther on that I can grab onto, but I'm afraid you're drifting too far from the "space station" for anyone to grab. :laugh:

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Post #32
Rom 11:17And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Here it says that only SOME of the branches be broken off

I suppose by now you have noticed that there were "SOME" branches cut out -- not one.

Just forgot to add the s, at least you now acknowledge it was branches and not the whole household of Israel!

All I can say at this point is the more you cite scripture, the more you err from the truth and I don't know how to discuss with your "wisdom."

I'm sorry. Maybe you will throw out a line" somewhere farther on that I can grab onto, but I'm afraid you're drifting too far from the "space station" for anyone to grab. :laugh:

skypair

Drifting nothing, your doctrine was silenced for hundreds of years until they found some baptist who grabbed it and run with it, in 18 or 19th century, with the help of Darby who came over here from England where he found some "green pasture", and D. L. Moody, who followed. I think there were 3 or 4 more before him. The MK started of with it would be a time of "sensual desires" and living after ever desire of the flesh. Sounds like at the beginning it was near Islamic belief of the 70 virgins...........

Well, we can't both be right and one of us is far from the truth, but I consider it to be you. I hold to the old Fathers on the doctrine of MK. Not Darby or some of the others.

I am Old Regular Baptist. It is in my profile.

What denomination are you, I like to know who I am dealing with also. There are many Baptist who are far away from Baptist doctrine.


BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Just to save myself further annoyance, (so as not to have to answer this when it will no doubt be tossed out, again) I'll mention, and yet once again, that Justin's "Apologies", the titles of his major works, are not written as "an apology" in the sense we would use the term today, but as Apologetics, in the sense of "a defense of the faith".

Call it what you want "a defense of the faith". but he had to give an account for his doctrine on the MK in his apologies. Ad defense means he was defending it against someone, but instead, seems to me he conceded.

Who was he talking to??????? He is not going to get up and convince them he was not talking of a "human" kingdom, unless he had to! You refute but without evidence, except Ed's personal evidence.

Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
"Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the support from the Apologists too, is extremely meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed, (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).

I take this a "good" record of history of Justin, unless you got evidence to the contrary! So, I will continue to post this info until proven wrong. I certainly will not stop because you say so. I know that Justin believed in the MK.

BBob,

 

[DHK]

"Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the support from the Apologists too, is extremely meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed, (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).
BBob,

Maybe, and maybe not. But the RCC find great solace in the writings of the ECF. So what does that prove? Perhaps it demonstrates that there might be more error than truth among their writings. Have you ever heard of progressive revelation or know what it is? Don't get me wrong. I believe that God stopped his revelation or that all revelation ceased when the Bible was complete. However as time "progresses" we learn more than those that have gone on before us for we can build on their knowledge and learning. Hindsight is better than foresight. Cyprian and others, for example, never had a Strong's concordance to study with. And Strong himself never had "Swordsearcher" or some other computer program. We have many things today that help us to study the Bible that those a few centuries ago never had. In fact before the advent of the printing press most everything was very difficult. We learn and build upon the foundation of the learning of others. No man is an island.

 

[EdSutton]

Call it what you want "a defense of the faith". but he had to give an account for his doctrine on the MK in his apologies. Ad defense means he was defending it against someone, but instead, seems to me he conceded.

Who was he talking to??????? He is not going to get up and convince them he was not talking of a "human" kingdom, unless he had to! You refute but without evidence, except Ed's personal evidence.

Justin Martyr (A.D.150)
CHAP. XI.--WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR.
"And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid." (First Apology of Justin Martyr, ch. 11)
"Chiliasm found no favor with the best of the Apostolic Fathers... the support from the Apologists too, is extremely meager, only one from among their number can with reasonable fairness be claimed, (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, v. 25 - 36 ).

I take this a "good" record of history of Justin, unless you got evidence to the contrary! So, I will continue to post this info until proven wrong. I certainly will not stop because you say so. I know that Justin believed in the MK.

BBob,

To whom addressed? "First Apology":

CHAPTER I -- ADDRESS.
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar, and to his son Verissimus the Philosopher, and to Lucius the Philosopher, the natural son of Caesar, and the adopted son of Pius, a lover of learning, and to the sacred Senate, with the whole People of the Romans, I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them. (Justin - First Apology)

Entire translated text can be found here:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

"Second Apology" is addressed to the Roman Senate:

JUSTIN MARTYR
THE SECOND APOLOGY OF JUSTIN FOR THE CHRISTIANS
ADDRESSED TO THE ROMAN SENATE (Justin, Second Apology)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-secondapology.html

Justin's third major surviving work is the "Dialogue with Trypho", which you mentioned above. However, you are misreading the intent of Justin, in this, IMO. As TCGreek has stated above correctly, there were at least two (and probably more) threads of 'Chiliaism' flloating around. Justin is arguing against the more extreme version, and not denying that there will be a 'literal kingdom'., at all.

CHAPTER LXXX -- THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL CATHOLICS REJECT IT.
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"
Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae, Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists (Nyuck! Nyuck!- Ed), are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXX)

Complete translated Text found here.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

Brother Bob, did you get all that, especially the three points emphasized? I'll help. First, one does not have to believe as I do (nor as Justin did) to be considered one with "true faith" and a "true Christian", as in the first part which I underlined. FTR, I am not defending Justin in all that He taught, for he was 'off' in some issues, clearly, IMO. But not here, in this dialogue. You and I do not agree in all aspects, yet I certainly consider you 'orthodox", as well. The tent is a bit larger than that, but it is not all inclusive. My above post mentioning Arianism is one example, and the teachings of Cerinthus of a sort of anti-nomian teaching of a sensous "neo-Gnosticism" is another example of some I will not allow my tent to ever be large enough to include.


Second, even in those days there were some known as "Baptists". Granted, the Baptists referred to were not as we know them today, being followers of those from John, and are probably of similar mind to those referred to in Acts 19:1-8, but I still found the reference interesting.

Third, I am still hoping you will soon join Justin, me, and others of like mind, in being one of those "right minded Christians on all points, who are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead", but also assured that there will be "and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which wil then be built, adorned, and enlarged [as] the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah, [John] and others declare." :thumbsup:

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

P.S. There are other writings of Justin that have apparently not survived, except in cites and quotes in other writings, such as ones referred back to in the "First Apology", "Dialogue with Trypho", and by Irenaeus in "Against All Heresies".