Covenant salvation

[Iconoclast]

There is no salvation for anyone, including the nation of Israel OUTSIDE of Christ. Therefore, the nation of Israel at the second advent will be saved "in Christ" or according to the blood of the everlasting covenant.

However, there are covenants that do not deal with spiritual union with Christ but deal with material earthly promises (Rom. 9:1-5) and will be fulfilled by redeemed ethnic national Israel who will be "in Christ" experientially yet to come beginning with His advent when they are saved as a nation.

Hello B

i agree with your first statement...

the second perhaps could have an earthly literal fulfillment near the last day.....if one of the premill
schemes was in play....most likely historic premill.......

B......how do you view the Covenant of Redemption. ....what do you see as central to it....

do you see all other covenants as an unfolding of it...other than the mosaic?

some of the postmill writers allow for such just near the end of the thousand years...i am still open to teaching on this.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hello B

i agree with your first statement...

the second perhaps could have an earthly literal fulfillment near the last day.....if one of the premill
schemes was in play....most likely historic premill.......

B......how do you view the Covenant of Redemption. ....what do you see as central to it....

do you see all other covenants as an unfolding of it...other than the mosaic?

some of the postmill writers allow for such just near the end of the thousand years...i am still open to teaching on this.

I believe there is but one covenant of salvation and it is "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

In connection with the "old" and "new" covenansts, both have the same God as their author and He is not the author of confusion.

The purpose for the "old" is different than the purpose of the "new". The "Old" was given to reveal sin and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:20-22) and lead Israelites under Moses to faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:2) as revealed in the ceremonial laws and sacrifices. The gospel aspect of the "old" Covenant anticipated the fulfillment of all of its types in the coming of Christ (Acts 10:43) and thus when Christ coming occurred, the whole "old" covenant public administration was replaced by the "new" covenant administration.

In both PUBLIC administrations there was a qualified public "house of God" with qualified public ordained ministry and with public qualified ordinances (Heb. 9:1;1 Tim. 3:1-15).

The SAME gospel preached under the "old" is still preached under the "new" covenant administration, except the former preached it in types and anticipation of the types whereas the latter preached it as fulfilled with anticipation by its ordinances to the Second Advent.

The redemptive covenant with Abraham, with David, with Isaac and Jacob and with all individual elect was "the sure mercies of David" or the "blood of the everlasting covenant" (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:1-6; Acts 13:54).

The NATIONAL covenant made with Abraham had to do with other things other than personal redemption (Rom. 9:5).

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist

I believe there is but one covenant of salvation and it is "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

agreed

In connection with the "old" and "new" covenansts, both have the same God as their author and He is not the author of confusion.

agreed

The purpose for the "old" is different than the purpose of the "new". The "Old" was given to reveal sin and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:20-22) and lead Israelites under Moses to faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:2) as revealed in the ceremonial laws and sacrifices. The gospel aspect of the "old" Covenant anticipated the fulfillment of all of its types in the coming of Christ (Acts 10:43) and thus when Christ coming occurred, the whole "old" covenant public administration was replaced by the "new" covenant administration.

agreed

In both PUBLIC administrations there was a qualified public "house of God" with qualified public ordained ministry and with public qualified ordinances (Heb. 9:1;1 Tim. 3:1-15).

agreed

The SAME gospel preached under the "old" is still preached under the "new" covenant administration, except the former preached it in types and anticipation of the types whereas the latter preached it as fulfilled with anticipation by its ordinances to the Second Advent

.

agreed

The redemptive covenant with Abraham, with David, with Isaac and Jacob and with all individual elect was "the sure mercies of David" or the "blood of the everlasting covenant" (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:1-6; Acts 13:54).

agreed

The NATIONAL covenant made with Abraham had to do with other things other than personal redemption (Rom. 9:5).

I am not certain what you had in mind exactly...that is not expanded and fulfilled in Christ;

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.


11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace

 

[The Biblicist]

Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

1. Adoption
2. Glory
3. Covenants plural
4. giving of the Law
5. The service of God
6. Promises plural

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace

This is the most abused text in scripture. This text refers to "the service of God" previously among the Jews where the Jewish proselyte or GENTILE, a true believer in the gospel (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2) would be PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM in "the service of God" in the public house of worship. The Gentile was restricted to a certain area in the temple and a wall was errected between the Gentile and the Jew in regard to public service in the house of God. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION but with those saved Gentiles and their standing in the public house of service AFTER they are saved.

Furthermore, the former public house of worship divided SERVICE into classes and genders. The court of the woman restricted women from equal service in the former house of God. Only a certain CLASS of Jews could serve in the Temple proper as the common Jew could not enter into that aspect of PUBLIC WORSHIP.

However, in the new PUBLIC HOUSE OF WORSHIP - the congregational body of baptized believers AT EPHESUS which is "AN" holy temple and "AN" habitation of God no such race, gender or class distinctions exist in public worship. They worship as ONE congregational body without social, racial or gender PHYSICAL separation as a "middle wall of separation" would cause.

In Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female in regard to salvation and in regard to PHYSICAL DIVISIONS in public worship. The temple and Jewish synoguoge would PHYSICALLY SEPARATE the women from the men in public worship, not so in the church institution. Women and men have distinct roles in public worship but they are not PHYSICALLY separated from each other.

 

[Iconoclast]

While there was a physical separation in the OT...that is not what Paul is focused on at all.

To say this has nothing to do with salvation is wrong...he is speaking of salvation when he introduces this...I will develop this more later on

 

[The Biblicist]

While there was a physical separation in the OT...that is not what Paul is focused on at all.

To say this has nothing to do with salvation is wrong...he is speaking of salvation when he introduces this...I will develop this more later on

Of course salvation precedes this. Only a circumcised Gentile or a professing believer in Christ was allowed in the temple and court of the Gentiles. Those in the court of the Gentiles were not uncircumcised unbelievers. However, paul's point is not over the issue of salvation as there was no difference concerning that between Old and New Testament scriptures but with EQUAL WORSHIP of believers that was prohibited by the "middle wall of separation" in the temple.

Of course your ecclesiology forbids you to interpret this passage objectively and so I understand your reaction.

 

[Iconoclast]

Of course salvation precedes this. Only a circumcised Gentile or a professing believer in Christ was allowed in the temple and court of the Gentiles. Those in the court of the Gentiles were not uncircumcised unbelievers. However, paul's point is not over the issue of salvation as there was no difference concerning that between Old and New Testament scriptures but with EQUAL WORSHIP of believers that was prohibited by the "middle wall of separation" in the temple.

Of course your ecclesiology forbids you to interpret this passage objectively and so I understand your reaction.

:laugh: hello B....

That is exactly how I feel about your posts:wavey:...Your ecclesiology goes over the line by one or two steps, namely in your desire to force your position, you ignore the spiritual nature of the Nt church.
The gentile church did not meet in the tabernacle,,,or temple.....they ARE the temple, living stones built up a habitation and household of God.
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,




I hold a strong local church view. I believe your position goes beyond what scripture shows. This is also why we differ on Spirit Baptism/union with Christ also. It is shown by your denial that Paul is demonstrating the effects of salvation on the gentiles coming in to the churches on equal footing, in mass, and worldwide. We will agree on many things as I usually enjoy reading many of your posts, but I will not agree with the extreme landmarkism that enters in.
So, we will not come to agreement on these things:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

:laugh: hello B....


The gentile church did not meet in the tabernacle,,,or temple.....they ARE the temple, living stones built up a habitation and household of God.

Never said they did, never denied they were not metaphorically called a "temple" and "house of God" "body" "husbandry" "virgin" "bride" etc. But such metaphors are directly applied to EACH congregation (1 Cor. 3:9, 16; 12:27; Eph. 2:21 "AN" habitation and "AN" holy temple; "espoused virgin" - 2 Cor. 11:2; "house of God" - 1 Tim. 3:15).

Your hermeneutics is the problem. Try this exercise. Look up the phrase "The house of God". You will find that in the KJV it is used a total of 87 times in the Bible. 84 of these times occur before 1 Tim. 3:15 and ALWAYS in every single instance of those previous 84 times it is a QUALIFIED PUBLIC house of worship overseen by a QUALIFIED PUBLIC ministry where QUALIFIED PUBLIC ordinances and where a QUALIFIED PUBLIC system of faith is taught and all are administered within the professing kingdom of God.

Now, look at the immediate context in which the 85th occurrence occurs (1 Tim. 3:1-16).

1. In the context of a QUALIFIED PUBLIC ministry who administer QUALIFIED PUBLIC ORDINANCES- 1 Tim. 3:1-13

2. In the context of a QUALIFIED PUBLIC system of faith - 1 Tim. 3:16-4:6

3. In the context of proper behavior conducted within it - 1 Tim. 3:15

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

This is true of "AN" holy temple and "AN" habitation of God such as exists AT EPHESUS. This is true of the institutional church wherever it may be geographically located (Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.).

The "family of God" is not synonmous with either the Kingdom or Church of God. They overlap but the distinctions are found in the overlaps.

From purely a exegetical point of view my position is more exact and precise with the context.:thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe there is but one covenant of salvation and it is "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20).

In connection with the "old" and "new" covenansts, both have the same God as their author and He is not the author of confusion.

The purpose for the "old" is different than the purpose of the "new". The "Old" was given to reveal sin and the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:20-22) and lead Israelites under Moses to faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:2) as revealed in the ceremonial laws and sacrifices. The gospel aspect of the "old" Covenant anticipated the fulfillment of all of its types in the coming of Christ (Acts 10:43) and thus when Christ coming occurred, the whole "old" covenant public administration was replaced by the "new" covenant administration.

In both PUBLIC administrations there was a qualified public "house of God" with qualified public ordained ministry and with public qualified ordinances (Heb. 9:1;1 Tim. 3:1-15).

The SAME gospel preached under the "old" is still preached under the "new" covenant administration, except the former preached it in types and anticipation of the types whereas the latter preached it as fulfilled with anticipation by its ordinances to the Second Advent.

The redemptive covenant with Abraham, with David, with Isaac and Jacob and with all individual elect was "the sure mercies of David" or the "blood of the everlasting covenant" (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:1-6; Acts 13:54).

The NATIONAL covenant made with Abraham had to do with other things other than personal redemption (Rom. 9:5).

Until the Messiah came though, they were under the Bondage of the law, as NONE of them were able to keep it fully, but the Lord did NOT intend to have any of them saved by keeping it, rather, the point was that due to them being weak in their sinful flesh, needed to trust and believe that God would send the messaih to do the atoning, as THEN would there be granted unto the saved new hearts and the promised Holy spirit!

 

[The Biblicist]

Until the Messiah came though, they were under the Bondage of the law, as NONE of them were able to keep it fully, but the Lord did NOT intend to have any of them saved by keeping it, rather, the point was that due to them being weak in their sinful flesh, needed to trust and believe that God would send the messaih to do the atoning, as THEN would there be granted unto the saved new hearts and the promised Holy spirit!

You are teaching that the pre-pentecost believer is SUPERIOR to the Post-Pentecost believer BECAUSE Paul denies that he is able to overcome indwelling sin except by the indwelling Spirit of God but YOU have prePentecost believers pleasing God and walking by faith (Heb 11:1-41) thus overcoming indwelling sin without the indwelling Spirit of God.

Your position is unbiblical that is why you can NEVER provide scripture to support your position.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Biblicist
Hello B....good solid post:thumbsup:

Never said they did, never denied they were not metaphorically called a "temple" and "house of God" "body" "husbandry" "virgin" "bride" etc. But such metaphors are directly applied to EACH congregation (1 Cor. 3:9, 16; 12:27; Eph. 2:21 "AN" habitation and "AN" holy temple; "espoused virgin" - 2 Cor. 11:2; "house of God" - 1 Tim. 3:15).

Correct...but I needed to clarify a bit.

Your hermeneutics is the problem

.

I would say this is possible . I am re-studying some of this material and challenging some of what I have previously have held...so while I have a certain base that I hold to, I have been taking a fresh look and not as dogmatic on some of these things.
I am enjoying the interaction , even when we differ because you give solid biblical backing most all of the time and there are good solid verses and ideas being discussed:wavey:

Try this exercise. Look up the phrase "The house of God". You will find that in the KJV it is used a total of 87 times in the Bible. 84 of these times occur before 1 Tim. 3:15 and ALWAYS in every single instance of those previous 84 times it is a QUALIFIED PUBLIC house of worship overseen by a QUALIFIED PUBLIC ministry where QUALIFIED PUBLIC ordinances and where a QUALIFIED PUBLIC system of faith is taught and all are administered within the professing kingdom of God.

This is a worthy exercise and study. Overall I agree with the content of what you have posted as you have presented a solid case. Although I believe the first time the phrase was used was here;
This might be an exception to the rule, however very substantial as it prefigures the One eternal Church and the goal of redemptive history.


10 And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.

11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.13 And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not.
17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

Now, look at the immediate context in which the 85th occurrence occurs (1 Tim. 3:1-16).

Again you go to the correct passage...and it does include the "Divine " MUST...

1. In the context of a QUALIFIED PUBLIC ministry who administer QUALIFIED PUBLIC ORDINANCES- 1 Tim. 3:1-13

2. In the context of a QUALIFIED PUBLIC system of faith - 1 Tim. 3:16-4:6

3. In the context of proper behavior conducted within it - 1 Tim. 3:15

Agreed

This is true of "AN" holy temple and "AN" habitation of God such as exists AT EPHESUS. This is true of the institutional church wherever it may be geographically located (Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.).

Agreed...

The "family of God" is not synonmous with either the Kingdom or Church of God. They overlap but the distinctions are found in the overlaps.

I like how you have worded this....it is perhaps in the "overlap" where we differ. The distinctions are worthy of serious meditation and application to what they mean to each of us.

From purely a exegetical point of view my position is more exact and precise with the context.

It might be....Like I have said...I sometimes take an over view, and zoom out of specific passages to see the overall plan God has unfolded. I have not been able to sit in my study for quite awhile now and dig in as much as I would like to , but in the providence of God I am just going from memory on the move , like this dinner time at the truckstop.


What does the "family of God" speak to you of, in relation to the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant....

Do you see it in terms of the list you offered a few posts ago, or something else?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are teaching that the pre-pentecost believer is SUPERIOR to the Post-Pentecost believer BECAUSE Paul denies that he is able to overcome indwelling sin except by the indwelling Spirit of God but YOU have prePentecost believers pleasing God and walking by faith (Heb 11:1-41) thus overcoming indwelling sin without the indwelling Spirit of God.

Your position is unbiblical that is why you can NEVER provide scripture to support your position.

The Old testament believers pleased God by the fact that they trusted in Him and held to his promises, NOT due to them being indwelt by the Holy Spirit same exact way that we are now under the New Covenant!

They looked to the coming Messiah to be their saviour, and God saved them, as he chose not to hold their sins against Him, due to the Cross of tghe Messiah yet to come...

How can all of the saved under the Old covenant have the Spirit same way as we do today, as he had not come to the earth in that fashion until pentacost?