It's not the Bible till we say its the Bible....

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
That really is it. DHK, since our Lord Himself said He was establishing the New Covenant in His Blood, am I so wrong to view His work through the lenses of covenantalism?

You have the perfect right to hold to the view of covenantalism. I will stand up for your right. That's the nature of soul liberty. You have the right to be wrong

Quite right. And St. Paul makes mention of the fact that we are now the "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) and the children of Abraham (Gal. 3: 8) The Church was not viewed as something different from Judaism, but the fulfillment and continuation of Judaism, but in the fulfillment of Christ.

I believe that Paul was using that statement "Israel of God" metaphorically. There will always be the nation of Israel, just as there is today, so will there be in the future. If we are the children of Israel, then what tribe are we from?

Ah ah!! No no no. Remember, covenants are CONDITIONAL. The term perpetual covenant means that the TERMS of the covenant are unchangeable. But like all covenants, this one can be broken.

Most of God's covenants are unconditional. God's grace over-rules. "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." There is no condition. Believing cannot be cnsidered a condition. This is an unconditional promise; just as many of his covenants are unconditional.

The Sabbath Day could and was broken. A man gathered sticks on the Sabbath. That was work. He was taken outside the camp and stoned. He had broken the Sabbath. But the Sabbath still remained the sign of the covenant for the Jews. Just because it was broken did not annul the fact that the Sabbath remained a sign of the covenant--a perpetual covenant throughout the generations of Israel forever--the literal nation of Israel.

Yes, and God gave them all that he had promised. I remember reading a paper a couple of years ago which showed how God had fulfilled all that He had promised. But the Jews lost it.

No, I don't believe that is true. Israel never claimed for themselves all the land that was promised to Abraham and his descendants. If you study it out in Genesis you will find that it was a massive piece of land that reached its peak under the rule of Solomon. Even then it was not as large as God had promised to Abraham, probably due to what it says throughout the first chapter of the book of Judges. "They fialed to drive out the Canaanites (and other inhabitants of the land).

Sorry. That is not a covenant, pure and simple. Go read Deuteronomy 28. That is the description of how a covenant works. It can be broken by either side.

I disagree. Not all of God's covenant are conditional. Actually very few are. Our God is a very merciful God.

Again, profound disagreement. The name "Is ra el" means "the people of God". The people of God is anyone who belongs to the covenantal nation. You are confusing ethnicity (being a Jew) with faith (being an Israelite -- a person of faith.)

Israel does not mean people of God. At best it means "prince of God," describing Jacob. However, as Christian means follower of Christ, it would be more accurate to say that Israelite means follower of Israel or Jacob, for so was his name. Are you a follower of Jacob or of Christ? Make up your mind. God chose the patriarchal fathers: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, his 12 sons, and eventually Moses to call out a nation for Himself, and to show forth His power and praises among the nations.
When Christ came, the Jews rejected Him as their Messiah. They still remain a nation; they were not dissolved as a nation. They became spiritually blind in part to the truths of God's Word, but they are still here today, and no one can dispute that.
We live in a different dispensation, just as Adam and Eve did. And in this dispensation of grace (after the cross) God is calling out another nation for Himself. He is calling a bride, composed of all believers.

1Pet.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

One of my favorite verses to show that God has now shifted the title "Israelite" to the Church. Notice the correlation between the wording in 1 Peter 2:9 and Exodus 19:6. The language is identical.

But this in no way shows that the church has replaced Israel. It only shows that today God is calling out a people for Himself, not replacing the nation of Israel at all. If that were the truth, then God would be a liar for he has made a covenant with the Jews forever, a perpetual covenant, throughout their generations forever. We are not those Jews.
DHK

 

[Kiffin]

My original point was that the Bible is what the Church says it is and says only that which the Church says it says.

So.....despite and and all of your interpretations (and Lawdy ain't dere a passel o dem!!), the only interpretation which is correct is the one which the Church says is correct. Therefore, the Church says what the Bible is, and not anyone outside the Church. Therefore, all interpretations which do not agree with that which the Church teaches are not really the Word of God.

Or:

It ain't the Bible till we say it's the Bible.

I believe that was basically the same opinion the Sanhedrin had in opposing Jesus.....Interesting also, that there was no pope at Hippo and Carthage Maybe, because there was no Pope, No Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century. Of course all the early councils made decisions based on a consensus not on papal decrees of authority.

 

[CatholicConvert]

I believe that was basically the same opinion the Sanhedrin had in opposing Jesus.....Interesting also, that there was no pope at Hippo and Carthage Maybe, because there was no Pope, No Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century. Of course all the early councils made decisions based on a consensus not on papal decrees of authority

There may not have been popes at every council, but from what I read as I studied the Faith, there was first of all a representative of the papacy there, and secondly, the final decisions of the council had to go to the pope for final ratification or rejection. In other words, the Chair of St. Peter was still that office which was promised infallibility in doctrinal matters, therefore, all concicular decisions were run by him.

We know that this is a fact from the witness of history also. Quite simply, in the sixth century, from approximately 515 - 550 AD, EVERY SINGLE EASTERN BISHOP WAS AN ARIAN HERETIC!! and had it not been for St. Athanasius and the pope standing firm against this heresy, YOU sir, as well as the rest of us, would all be Arian heretics today!!!

You should really thank God that the pope was there to stand for the truth!!

 

[A_Christian]

GOD has ALWAYS had a remnant. Peter Lombard
was of such. John Wyclif was of such.
Martin Luther was of such.

The LORD has placed the right men in the right
spot at the right moment in time, to stand
against the worship of Church and point it
back to Christ.