The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant

[saturneptune]

DHK good post. You have summed up the whole ball of wax as far as I'm concerned. I do want to touch on one small point....




Over the last year or so I have been if nothing else consistant and relentless in my criticism of Covenant Theology. No one has put up even a baby fight to defend this view Biblically. This is the core of the problem and you have nailed it, the Calvinist mentors have brainwashed their novices into believing that there are Biblical covenants of Grace, Works and Redemption.

If there are such Covenants, the Bible does not speak of them. A good question to ask, if someone insists that there are such covenants and the BIble is silent on them then where do they get their knowledge of them?

Thomas,
Most of what I have read of yours sounds reasonable, and I do not want to put a defintion on covenant theology, as many disagree with what I have said. All I am saying is the events of the Old Testement were guided by the Lord for the preperation of the coming of Jesus Christ and His work on this earth.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Before i respond in detail...and i will...I just want to see what charges i am responding to before i address the more pressing issues.

This is your arrogance. You continue to accuse me of being in error. When you point a finger at me you have three more pointing back at you. Think well about that.
I didn't mis-use it as you say. Only according to you I mis-used it. But that is just your opinion. You state opinion as fact. That is no way to debate. It is not debate either to berate your opponent over the head and keep telling them that they need to "consider those who offer correction of your error." That is the most condescending thing that I keep hearing from you. Perhaps the shoe fits better on the other foot.
Perhaps if you are the truck driver you are headed for a steep cliff and you are blinded.

Really DHK.....lets see what you offer me in these two posts::thumbs:


A "type" does not constitute a church. If you want to stick to your allegorical method of interpretation go and debate HisWitness, a relatively new poster. Using the same methods you use, he doesn't believe Satan exists any longer. In fact he believes that God is Satan--a heresy if not blasphemy. His method of interpretation, the same as yours

began with a heretic, Origen. You can make the Bible say anything you want to.
and these.....

1]

You cannot know the heart, and neither can I; and yet you and MacArthur claim to know the heart of all men.

2]

You claim to be able to divide all men into spiritual and unsaved, whereas many of those "unsaved" may indeed be carnal

.


3]Who are you to take the place of God?

4] You are very arrogant in this!!

5.]Paul calls them carnal, and indeed they were

6]Paul calls the one who committed adultery or incest in 1Cor.5, a brother, a saved individual.

7]This carnal fornicating Christian was obviously carnal in his lifestyle and needed to repent.

8]Now who believes the heresy?

9] You post Presbyterian theology.

10]I, by my own free will, trusted Christ as my Savior. God, by his omniscience knew what decision I would make. That did not hinder my free will to make that decision. I did not enter into a covenant. I entered into the family of God.
That is a false Calvinistic belief that cannot be proven or backed up by Scripture.

11] Both Lordship salvation and the denial of carnal Christians I can refute quite well. But to those who will not listen, they remain ignorant, don't they.

.
.
12]"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
Show me one verse in the Bible where God gives faith to the unsaved.
He doesn't. That goes against all Scripture.

13]God does not give spiritual gifts to the unsaved. It is absurd even to think of such things, yet Calvinists have been brainwashed by their mentors to accept this idea without thinking it through

14]God does not give faith to unbelievers. They must put their faith in Christ.

15] All covenants were made with the Hebrews.
There is no covenant here.

16]This is your arrogance. You continue to accuse me of being in error

17]Did you just admit that you don't want to look at or read 1Cor.3:3. That is really sad.

18]I have plenty of Greek and Hebrew teachers. You would have me to look at the J.W. Greek teachers too. That is a good comparison as far as I am concerned.


19]Perhaps if you are the truck driver you are headed for a steep cliff and you are blinded.

So with this in mind..I will respond to your multitude of errors.

 

[saturneptune]

So with this in mind..I will respond to your multitude of errors.

No, you are going to take sound doctrine and pepper it with errors, as you call it.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

because there are so many issues to deal with I will break up the posts into smaller segments

A "type" does not constitute a church.

Did i say it did? Here is what i said,which you think to avoid with this comment.

There are no NT churches in the OT. That is why there is a type,and anti type.

Quote:
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
The Ot saints were a called out assembly, a Holy nation{at least the elect remnant was} it was not the Nt church however, until the last day when their will only be one assembled body...not two separate bodies,as dispensationalism wrongly proclaims.
Quote:
Hebrews 3

3 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4 For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


Although Jesus builds His church NT....there is a continuity ..a Covenant continuity ..the gentiles in Cornith were told that the Ot saints were..our fathers..you can deny it if you want,but this is what the bible teaches on it,as well as yesterdays post to you.

10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

You did not respond to these verses at all ....acts 7 included...

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


The Ot saints were a called out assembly, a Holy nation{at least the elect remnant was} it was not the Nt church however, until the last day when their will only be one assembled body...not two separate bodies,as dispensationalism wrongly proclaims.

It does not say the Nt church...just the church in the wilderness....

ecclesia is a called out assembly....you point to the unruly mob that assembled seeking to avoid the issue....

a called out assembly that is called together by God to worship Him...is a church, in the Ot .it was as a congregation or assembly .

I never said it was Jesus building The Nt Church in the Ot.

Instead of addressing the verses honestly.....your attempted response was this;

QUOTE]If you want to stick to your allegorical method of interpretation go and debate HisWitness, a relatively new poster. Using the same methods you use, he doesn't believe Satan exists any longer. In fact he believes that God is Satan--a heresy if not blasphemy.His method of interpretation, the same as yours began with a heretic, Origen. . You can make the Bible say anything you want to.[/QUOTE]

Your attempt at a response is;
1]accuse me of allegorizing the texts

2]Linking me with a new posted who has perhaps blasphemed

3]His method of interpretation, the same as yours began with a heretic, Origen.

So here are texts that you cannot answer to with your system...so you now say i am heretical as Origen and the new poster, as if no one will notice that you avoid the clear meaning of the texts:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2

The Church Age started at Pentecost, and that is final. It is a well known and accepted theological fact.

the term church age is accepted in theological circles.....and we know what is meant by it. As to it being a "theological fact".....many in the historic faith take issue with what constitutes being the
Assembled people of God.Because of your major aversion to covenant theology, you now will deny the very essence of the Covenant, and covenant language..which is

as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Why dispensationalism is false is found in that it forces someone like you to deny what you read with your own eyes...in scripture..

This Covenant promise is both to Jew and Gentile...not to the jew only as you posit.
anyone can look up in a concordance these words and see they are used in ot and nt.

An assembly is not necessarily a church. So, an assembly was called out in the wilderness? So what? That doesn't make it a church.

A rock concert is an assembly also. what makes an assembly a church is that the people of God are called to assemble or congregate for Holy purposes, under His ordained elders. This absurity you try and pull again avoids the issue, because you know enough that if you admit to it, the covenant theologian wins the day.

What part did yWill you agree here too?

Acts 19:39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
--This assembly took place in a theater. It was the mayor that dismissed it.
Was it a church, Icon?

In first timothy i do not see mayor as one of the church rulers...unless of course this was a seeker sensitive church and did not want to offend the unruly mob with any God given authority figure,lol
That fact is you are desperately trying to play word games to avoid what you know is so.
if you teach a sunday school class.....on the "church"...you do not use ecclesia, church, or assembly??? is that what you are saying by this going around the mulberry
bush?

 

[Iconoclast]

pt3

Covenants are typically two way, like two people shaking hands in agreement. Which part did you play?

Biblical covenants are not two way,like two people shaking hands.
This part of this post can only be described as Willful ignorance.There is no real nice way to say it.With 28000 posts,and 2000 books on your book shelf,saying you teach in a college....
To begin to describe biblical covenants as if they were man made covenants between to equals is to completely ignore all biblical revelation on the Covenants.

Abraham was put to sleep...he did not go through the pieces of the divided animal he was not on equal footing with God,and furthermore we Have the Divine testimony of this very fact;

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

Did you die on the cross, or shed blood? How much did you share in the sufferings of Christ in order to enter into this covenant--baptism?

Jesus died on the cross for All the elect Given to Him by the Father.At regeneration, Spirit Baptism is put to my account and upon all who Jesus came to save...
We do not share in His mediatoral work except to be the recipients of His righteousness by God given repentance and faith.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

You have a works salvation do you?

Another personal attack when nothing i said hinted at that.A misunderstanding of this topic completely on your part,does not translate into a works gospel on my part.
This is just plain weak.

My salvation is via the grace of God accepted by faith based on the substitutionary work of Christ. It is a relationship with Christ not a covenant. Covenants imply works; religions.

Covenant teaching is God given and all through the bible for the whole world, [jn3:16], [1jn2:2]not the Jew only as you claim.
If i walked into a church who denied these teachings as you do even boasting of it...i would flee out of there.
Covenants imply works religions???....God gave the covenants...This is indefensible on your part.

 

[DHK]

DHK

because there are so many issues to deal with I will break up the posts into smaller segments

Did i say it did? Here is what i said,which you think to avoid with this comment.

You said:
"There are no NT churches in the OT. That is why there is a type,and anti type."
I would suggest that you get MacArthur's book, "Charismatic Chaos," go to chapter four, and read it carefully. It is a good chapter on hermeneutics: how to interpret the Bible. Just as in parables, one does not teach doctrine from types and anti-types. That is not hermeneutically sound. Even MacArthur would agree with me on this. You cannot base a doctrine on types and anti-types. It leads to heresy. I will say it again. Origen introduced this method of teaching, and he was a heretic. Even the RCC considered him an heretic. Why are you trying to justify your teaching and doctrine in this way.
There are no churches in the OT!!

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The Ot saints were a called out assembly, a Holy nation{at least the elect remnant was} it was not the Nt church however, until the last day when their will only be one assembled body...not two separate bodies,as dispensationalism wrongly proclaims.

I did respond to this.
This was an assembly, not a NT church. It has nothing to do with the Church Age of the NT. You are leaning to the heresy of Replacement Theology.
Out of all the nations of the world God called out Israel. He set his eyes upon her, made her the object of his love and called her out to be a light in a world of darkness. Israel was a nation, enlightened by God and given a purpose to be a light to others. She failed miserably.
Now God has set Israel aside temporarily, is calling out another nation by his grace, the church. Read John 1:11,12.

Acts 7:38 `This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the messenger who is speaking to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers who did receive the living oracles to give to us; (Young's)
--It doesn't say church, does it?

It does not say the Nt church...just the church in the wilderness....

It simply says "assembly," and that is all.

ecclesia is a called out assembly....you point to the unruly mob that assembled seeking to avoid the issue....

We do not define words according to their etymology. If we did then Sunday would mean "day to worship the sun." Is that what you do on "Sunday." Likewise, "ekklesia" simply means "assembly," and nothing more. Thus I gave you the usage of the word in Acts 19. They "assembled" in the theater, and the mayor dismissed "the assembly." The words "called out" are from the etymology and are not inherent in the actual definition of the word. It simply means "assembly" or "congregation" and nothing more.

a called out assembly that is called together by God to worship Him...is a church, in the Ot .it was as a congregation or assembly .

The crowd in the theater was not called out be God. But it was an assembly. That is what the word means.

Instead of addressing the verses honestly.....your attempted response was this;

If you want to stick to your allegorical method of interpretation go and debate HisWitness, a relatively new poster. Using the same methods you use, he doesn't believe Satan exists any longer. In fact he believes that God is Satan--a heresy if not blasphemy.His method of interpretation, the same as yours began with a heretic, Origen. . You can make the Bible say anything you want to.

Your attempt at a response is;
1]accuse me of allegorizing the texts

2]Linking me with a new posted who has perhaps blasphemed

3]His method of interpretation, the same as yours began with a heretic, Origen.

So here are texts that you cannot answer to with your system...so you now say i am heretical as Origen and the new poster, as if no one will notice that you avoid the clear meaning of the texts:laugh:

1. You did allegorize the texts. (type and anti-type)
That is not how doctrine is taught, rather it is how it may be illustrated if the doctrine is already present. But first it has to be established, and you haven't done that.

2. Both the person who blasphemed and Origen the heretic, are examples. They are examples of those who use the same kind of hermeneutical method of interpretation that you use. It gets them into trouble. That is the link. I trust you will learn from it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Why did you stop reading there? Read further

:

I stopped there because I wanted you not to offer up a distraction to the point in discussion that is why...and you are doing that very thing....I know they were written as examples...that is why I said they were a type earlier on when you accused me of being allegorical.
1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

--All this was an example, just an example for us, Icon. We need to learn from their errors; learn from their history, not to sin as they sinned.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

No one disputes this at all.What I dispute is that Paul speaking to gentiles calls the Ot saints...OUR FATHERS....you have failed to mention this..instead seek to move on to another area without dealing with it.

. It has nothing to do with covenants.

Sure it does for anyone who takes of there dispensational glasses and tries to deal with the text.You do not seem to be ready to do that.

The laws pertaining to Israel were nailed by Christ on the cross.

The ceremonial and judicial laws were completed in Christ, the moral law remains.I am sure you teach flasehood here also,as I know your system and this is why when people study it out, most of them have to leave it behind faster than a Tim Lahay fiction novel.

If you don't like the term "grace,"

I like the term grace...I liked it when it was said of Noah:
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Yes, that one way is "justification by faith," not covenants.
Then you shouldn't argue with it.

it is not either or, but both and

Genesis 3:15 is known as the "protoevangelium," or the first Messianic promise. It is a promise not a covenant. You are confused.

The covenant is spoken of as a promise and an oath all through scripture.This also has to be willfull ignorance with 2000 books on your shelf.

That is what you need to do. If you can't tell that Gen.3:15 is a promise and not a covenant you are in need of some serious Bible study.

If you are serious with this statement then you cannot really explain the biblical truth
as revealed in scripture. What was the promise about, on what basis is this promise made, who is the surety of the promise/ who is the mediator ?

Another example of wrongly fragmenting the word of God ,instead of rightly dividing the word of truth as many like to boast of. the revelation is part of the whole, not isolated verses like bbs in a bucket.

Those chapters don't speak of salvation. I didn't enter a covenant when I got saved; I entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Jn 6 does not speak of salvation???please DHK!

John 6--the promise of eternal life.

Jn 6 the Covenant of Redemption explained.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Book of Hebrews was written to Hebrew Christians, and therefore directed to Hebrews.

It was addressed to Hebrew Christians at that time of transition as a word of exhortation. As Christians they were now one with gentiles who are also christians.
The book of Hebrews is for now also as part of All scripture being given of God.

Hebrews 2--speaks of reconciliation.

hebrews 2 speaks of the Covenant of redemption as Jn 6 did, the same people in view...he took on Him :
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. literally everyone described here

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are

Hebrews 10--speaks of a future time; a time when promises will be fulfilled in the future--the Millennial Kingdom--at least part of the chapter does. It is a long chapter and deals with many subjects

The kingdom is now...right now...
No dispensational trick will get you out of these verses....
ye are come.....receiving a kingdom, let us have grace....hebrews is what destoyed the false fondations of the dispensational theory for me,and many others I have met.
When someone deals with what the verses say, instead of putting them off to a future time there is no dispute at all.

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.

God made covenants with Israel, not with the nation that He is now calling out through a relationship with Him via the Holy Spirit.
This is the Church Age. It will not end until Jesus comes again.
I apply the Scriptures and take them to a logical conclusion. The Bible is a harmonious book without contradiction. When I see a supposed contradiction I study and see why it is there and then resolve the problem through further study. Your system has inherent problems in it. It is not consistent. You cannot "rightly understand it." You cannot take it to its logical conclusion and still remain a Baptist, as you just admitted. You would have to become a Presbyterian or a Paedobaptist. It is a system that is full of inconsistencies.[/QUOTE]

 

[DHK]

pt2

the term church age is accepted in theological circles.....and we know what is meant by it. As to it being a "theological fact".....many in the historic faith take issue with what constitutes being the
Assembled people of God.Because of your major aversion to covenant theology, you now will deny the very essence of the Covenant, and covenant language..which is

This:
"as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. "

is not a definition of a church. You are very naive to accept that as a definition of a church. You need to get a good book and study ecclesiology. The word that is translated church is ekklesia which means assembly, but that does not define what a church is. If you look in a dictionary you may come up with about five different definitions, and not one of them may be the biblical definition.
Paul was a missionary. He started and established churches.
He wrote three pastoral epistles to pastors of churches.
Jesus wrote seven letters to the pastors of seven different churches in the Book of Revelation.
Every letter that Paul wrote was either to a church or the pastor of a church.
And none of the above fit your definition.

A local church is an assembly of immersed regenerated believers who have voluntarily assembled together for the purpose of obeying the Great Commission and carrying out the two ordinances (baptism and the Lord's Table) according to the Lord's command.

Why dispensationalism is false is found in that it forces someone like you to deny what you read with your own eyes...in scripture..

That is odd. I am not the one that denies 1Cor.3:3.

This Covenant promise is both to Jew and Gentile...not to the jew only as you posit.
anyone can look up in a concordance these words and see they are used in ot and nt.

Yes, I suppose one can. You haven't. So I will do it for you. A simple search reveals that the word "covenant" is first used in Genesis 6:18. The Hebrew meaning is this:

from 1262 (in the sense of cutting (like 1254)); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh):—confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.

By its very definition it appears to involve two parties: compact, league, confederacy, etc. That would make salvation a religion of works on your part. You have your part in the covenant and God has his. What part is yours?
However I believe that salvation is all of God: He is the author and finisher of my faith. He begins it and he ends. It is all of God. I didn't play any part in it. He did it all. How therefore can there be a covenant? I have a relationship with Christ, not a covenant.

Israel, when on Mount Sinai, entered into a covenant. They would do their part--circumcision, keep the law, keep the Sabbath, etc., and God would do his. This is what you have--a covenantal religion of works. And when put that way I hope you can see it is heresy.

A rock concert is an assembly also. what makes an assembly a church is that the people of God are called to assemble or congregate for Holy purposes, under His ordained elders. This absurity you try and pull again avoids the issue, because you know enough that if you admit to it, the covenant theologian wins the day.

That is right. The word means "assembly," but that doesn't define what a local church is. I defined it for you already. "Servant" doesn't define "deacon." But a deacon is a servant of the church. Your logic doesn't work. If you look up servant you won't find the word "deacon" just as you won't find the word "church" if you look up the word "assembly." A church is far more than an assembly, but the meaning of the word "ekklesia" is assembly.

In first timothy i do not see mayor as one of the church rulers...unless of course this was a seeker sensitive church and did not want to offend the unruly mob with any God given authority figure,lol
That fact is you are desperately trying to play word games to avoid what you know is so.

The meaning of the word ekklesia is assembly.
The definition of the word local church is far different. That is why Paul wrote "Pastoral epistles." He wrote them to teach Timothy and Titus about order and function in the local church.

if you teach a sunday school class.....on the "church"...you do not use ecclesia, church, or assembly??? is that what you are saying by this going around the mulberry
bush?

The sign outside our "church building" reads: "The meeting hall of ____ ___ Church." It was a place to meet. The church are the people. The church is the assembly. They gather together and are organized with the pastor as the head who is accountable to God. There are also deacons present. Read the pastoral epistles. You might learn something.

 

[Iconoclast]

1. You did allegorize the texts. (type and anti-type)
That is not how doctrine is taught, rather it is how it may be illustrated if the doctrine is already present. But first it has to be established, and you haven't done that.

2. Both the person who blasphemed and Origen the heretic, are examples. They are examples of those who use the same kind of hermeneutical method of interpretation that you use. It gets them into trouble. That is the link. I trust you will learn from it.

the bible uses both type and allegory-

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

the word figure is tupas[spelled wrong] type of Him who was to come;
<1,,5179,tupos>
"a type, figure, pattern," is translated "figures" (i.e., representations of gods) in Acts 7:43; in the RV of ver. 44 (for AV, "fashion") and in Rom. 5:14, of Adam as a "figure" of Christ. See ENSAMPLE.

<2,,499,antitupos>
an adjective, used as a noun, denotes, lit., "a striking back;" metaphorically, "resisting, adverse;" then, in a Passive sense, "struck back;" in the NT metaphorically, "corresponding to," (a) a copy of an archetype (anti, "corresponding to, and No. 1), i.e., the event or person or circumstance corresponding to the type, Heb. 9:24, RV, "like in pattern" (AV, "the figure of"), of the tabernacle, which, with its structure and appurtenances, was a pattern of that "holy place," "Heaven itself," "the true," into which Christ entered, "to appear before the face of God for us." The earthly tabernacle anticipatively represented what is now made good in Christ; it was a "figure" or "parable" (Heb. 9:9), "for the time now present," RV, i.e., pointing to the present time, not "then present," AV (see below); (b) "a corresponding type," 1 Pet. 3:21, said of baptism; the circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms "a corresponding type" (not an antitype), each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.

<3,,3850,parabole>
"a casting or placing side by side" (para, "beside," ballo, "to throw") with a view to comparison or resemblance, a parable, is translated "figure" in the AV of Heb. 9:9 (RV, "a parable for the time now present") and Heb. 11:19, where the return of Isaac was (parabolically, in the lit. sense of the term) figurative of resurrection (RV, "parable"). See No. 2 (a). See PARABLE.

allegory is also valid....nice try.....



22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

 

[saturneptune]

:
Jn 6 the Covenant of Redemption explained.

In this first place, you cannot even prove a convenant of redemption exists. Here is the man made definition:

The covenant of redemption is the eternal agreement within the Godhead in which the Father appointed the Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit to redeem his elect people from the guilt and power of sin. God appointed Christ to live a life of perfect obedience to the law and to die a penal, substitutionary, sacrificial death (see penal substitution aspect of the atonement) as the covenantal representative for all who trust in him. Some covenant theologians have denied the intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, or have questioned the notion of the Son's works leading to the reward of gaining a people for God, or have challenged the covenantal nature of this arrangement.

Next, Chapter 6 is a rather long chapter with a variety of subjects. The closest you are going to get is verses 37-40. This does not describe a covenant. It is the words of the Lord describing His work here on earth, and what brings about eternal life. The Gospel is not a covenant. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ. There are many covenants in the OT, and they are called by name. This is something you got from the Twilight Zone.

Imaginary covenant relationships are what denominations justify sprinkling infants. Every post you make, you bring out a pro Presbyterian belief, at the expense of Baptist distinctives.

 

[DHK]

pt3
Biblical covenants are not two way,like two people shaking hands.
This part of this post can only be described as Willful ignorance.There is no real nice way to say it.With 28000 posts,and 2000 books on your book shelf,saying you teach in a college....

Anyone who studies covenants knows that there are more than one kind of covenant. The covenant made with Abraham was unconditional: that is true.
The covenant made with Israel at Mt. Sinai, the Sinaitic Covenant was conditional. It was conditioned on Israel's obedience to the law, and the sign of the covenant--circumcision, as well as the Sabbath. What would happen if they did not keep the Sabbath:

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
--This is a perpetual covenant that is still in existence today--not for us, but for the nation of Israel. Covenants like this require obedience, the law--works.

To begin to describe biblical covenants as if they were man made covenants between to equals is to completely ignore all biblical revelation on the Covenants.

The Sinaitic covenant was on God's terms. But it was the law, and it was on terms of obedience; works.

Abraham was put to sleep...he did not go through the pieces of the divided animal he was not on equal footing with God,and furthermore we Have the Divine testimony of this very fact;

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Yes, that was an example of an unconditional covenant.

Jesus died on the cross for All the elect Given to Him by the Father.At regeneration, Spirit Baptism is put to my account and upon all who Jesus came to save...
We do not share in His mediatoral work except to be the recipients of His righteousness by God given repentance and faith.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Well he died for all, for that all have sinned. The Scripture is fairly clear at that point. Regardless.

Another personal attack when nothing i said hinted at that.A misunderstanding of this topic completely on your part,does not translate into a works gospel on my part.
This is just plain weak.

Not all covenants are strictly unconditional; not the siniatic covenant. So which part did you play? I am pointing out the inconsistency in convenantal theology. You can't just pick and choose at random. There has to be some consistency here. That is the weakness also in allegorization.

Covenant teaching is God given and all through the bible for the whole world, [jn3:16], [1jn2:2]not the Jew only as you claim.

Do you understand the difference between a covenant and a promise?

If i walked into a church who denied these teachings as you do even boasting of it...i would flee out of there.

If I walked into a church that labeled itself as Baptist and its doctrine sounded like Presbyterian, its gospel sounded like works, I would flee from there also.

Covenants imply works religions???....God gave the covenants...This is indefensible on your part.

The Sinaitic Covenant was based on works!

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
--That is works.

 

[Herald]

In Covenant Theology the great hope for mankind is the Covenant of Grace (or Covenant of Redemption). The term "Covenant of Grace" is a construct that is held together by a ribbon of grace that runs from Adam to Jesus. There is a difference between Presbyterian Covenant Theology and Baptist Covenant Theology; with the main point of contention being the nature and promise contained in the Abrahamic Covenant. Presbyterians believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is a perpetual covenant in this life, and it is to be observed by applying the sign of the New Covenant (baptism) to infants born into believing households. This paedobaptist view sees baptism as a one-for-one replacement for circumcision. Baptist Covenant Theology disagrees with this conclusion. It views the New Covenant as a completely new covenant between God and man. Covenant inclusion is not based on a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant through infant baptism, but rather a discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant - the new birth. That major difference aside, there is an almost lock-step agreement on the Covenant of Grace.

God's covenant is first seen in Genesis:

[15]*I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
(Genesis 3:15 ESV)

The offspring of the woman is none other than the future Messiah, Jesus Christ. Instead of judgment (which a holy God would have been justified in dispensing), Adam received mercy and grace.

Next comes the Noahaic Covenant:

[17]*For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. [18]*But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
(Genesis 6:17-18 ESV)

The Noahaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Here we see that great ribbon of God's grace connected from Adam to Noah.

The Noahaic Covenant is followed by the Abrahamic Covenant, which we see from Genesis 12-17.

[12:1]*Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. [2]*And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3]*I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

(Genesis 12:1-3 ESV)

[14]*The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, [15]*for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. [16]*I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. [17]*Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.”
(Genesis 13:14-17 ESV)

[3]*And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” [4]*And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” [5]*And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” [6]*And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

(Genesis 15:3-6 ESV)

[17:1]*When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, [2]*that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” [3]*Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, [4]*“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. [5]*No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. [6]*I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. [7]*And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. [8]*And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

(Genesis 17:1-8 ESV)

The posterity of Abraham is a continuation of the Covenant of Grace.

The Abrahamic Covenant was republished through Isaac's Covenant:

[2]*And the LORD appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. [3]*Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. [4]*I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, [5]*because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
(Genesis 26:2-5 ESV)

I can go on citing additional administrations of the Covenant of Grace: Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, Nineveh, David, Daniel, post-exilic Israel; all of these (and more) reveals God's grace and mercy, and point towards fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. God has always had one called out people from the creation of Adam unto now. That called out people has always been on the basis of faith (Gen. 15:6).

This is just one facet of Covenant Theology. Time doesn't allow for an exhaustive treatment.

 

[Iconoclast]

Covenants imply works religions???....God gave the covenants...This is indefensible on your part.
The Sinaitic Covenant was based on works!

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
--That is works.

the enjoyment of the blessings of the land was conditional....but in speaking of the Covenant of redemption, and the Covenant of grace...which the previous discussion was about was unconditional....do not move the target DHK..because I zero in...

you are like the submarine commander who ordered them to send out metal objects out the torpedo tube to throw off the sonar..lol

 

[Iconoclast]

In Covenant Theology the great hope for mankind is the Covenant of Grace (or Covenant of Redemption). The term "Covenant of Grace" is a construct that is held together by a ribbon of grace that runs from Adam to Jesus. There is a difference between Presbyterian Covenant Theology and Baptist Covenant Theology; with the main point of contention being the nature and promise contained in the Abrahamic Covenant. Presbyterians believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is a perpetual covenant in this life, and it is to be observed by applying the sign of the New Covenant (baptism) to infants born into believing households. This paedobaptist view sees baptism as a one-for-one replacement for circumcision. Baptist Covenant Theology disagrees with this conclusion. It views the New Covenant as a completely new covenant between God and man. Covenant inclusion is not based on a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant through infant baptism, but rather a discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant - the new birth. That major difference aside, there is an almost lock-step agreement on the Covenant of Grace.

God's covenant is first seen in Genesis:

[15]*I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
(Genesis 3:15 ESV)

The offspring of the woman is none other than the future Messiah, Jesus Christ. Instead of judgment (which a holy God would have been justified in dispensing), Adam received mercy and grace.

Next comes the Noahaic Covenant:

[17]*For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. [18]*But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you.
(Genesis 6:17-18 ESV)

The Noahaic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Here we see that great ribbon of God's grace connected from Adam to Noah.

The Noahaic Covenant is followed by the Abrahamic Covenant, which we see from Genesis 12-17.

[12:1]*Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. [2]*And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3]*I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

(Genesis 12:1-3 ESV)

[14]*The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, “Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, [15]*for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. [16]*I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. [17]*Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you.”
(Genesis 13:14-17 ESV)

[3]*And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” [4]*And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” [5]*And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” [6]*And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

(Genesis 15:3-6 ESV)

[17:1]*When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, [2]*that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” [3]*Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, [4]*“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. [5]*No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. [6]*I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. [7]*And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. [8]*And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

(Genesis 17:1-8 ESV)

The posterity of Abraham is a continuation of the Covenant of Grace.

The Abrahamic Covenant was republished through Isaac's Covenant:

[2]*And the LORD appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. [3]*Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. [4]*I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, [5]*because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.”
(Genesis 26:2-5 ESV)

I can go on citing additional administrations of the Covenant of Grace: Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Rahab, Nineveh, David, Daniel, post-exilic Israel; all of these (and more) reveals God's grace and mercy, and point towards fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. God has always had one called out people from the creation of Adam unto now. That called out people has always been on the basis of faith (Gen. 15:6).

This is just one facet of Covenant Theology. Time doesn't allow for an exhaustive treatment.

Thank you for this helpful post Herald.those who are observing and want to learn and study will find it helpful...thanks again.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

No, you are going to take sound doctrine and pepper it with errors, as you call it.

:laugh::laugh: i would have to copy and paste some of your ideas to do that:laugh: Your double standard is showing...lol we see it:wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

John MacArthur preached a message saying that how you view israel determines your endtime position....his message was answered , i believe it was Michael Horton...who answered exactly to this message...i will find and post the links later...as i have to go to staples to get a new mouse....:smilewinkgrin: then again....you and DHK will not listen because you do not need any links:thumbsup: but i will post the messages for everyone else:thumbsup:

It might have been Kim Riddlebarger ...for those who like to study;
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

 

[DHK]

:
I stopped there because I wanted you not to offer up a distraction to the point in discussion that is why...and you are doing that very thing....I know they were written as examples...that is why I said they were a type earlier on when you accused me of being allegorical.
1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

That is one of the key verses in this passage. Paul gives us examples from OT history. Then he sums it up in this verse. These are examples for us, that as they lusted we should not lust. It is not meant to be allegorical but historical. Even Paul writes that he is merely giving historical examples, nothing allegorical.

No one disputes this at all.What I dispute is that Paul speaking to gentiles calls the Ot saints...OUR FATHERS....you have failed to mention this..instead seek to move on to another area without dealing with it.

I don't have to deal with it. Paul is relating OT history and using it as an example not to lust. He is teaching us a lesson using OT events as an example. I do the same thing in my preaching. It is not allegory. It is an historical example.

Sure it does for anyone who takes of there dispensational glasses and tries to deal with the text.You do not seem to be ready to do that.

I read the Scripture and believe what is written.
There are no covenants here.

The ceremonial and judicial laws were completed in Christ, the moral law remains.I am sure you teach flasehood here also,as I know your system and this is why when people study it out, most of them have to leave it behind faster than a Tim Lahay fiction novel.

No need to lay personal attacks unless you can back up your accusations.

it is not either or, but both and

No. Salvation all throughout the Bible is justification by faith--both OT and NT; not salvation by covenants.

The covenant is spoken of as a promise and an oath all through scripture.This also has to be willfull ignorance with 2000 books on your shelf.

Put your arrogance on your own shelf and listen up!! Genesis 3:15 is in the midst of a Curse. It is in no way, shape or form a covenant. The Lord was speaking to Satan (the serpent), saying:

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman..."
Are you saying that God is making a covenant with the Serpent!!!!!!!!
That is who he is addressing in Genesis 3:15.
There is no covenant here!!!
However, in the midst of what he said there is hidden a promise--the promise of the coming Messiah. That is not a covenant.

If you are serious with this statement then you cannot really explain the biblical truth
as revealed in scripture. What was the promise about, on what basis is this promise made, who is the surety of the promise/ who is the mediator ?

Another example of wrongly fragmenting the word of God ,instead of rightly dividing the word of truth as many like to boast of. the revelation is part of the whole, not isolated verses like bbs in a bucket.

Satan would eventually be defeated. The Lord is speaking to the Serpent whom the Lord is cursing. The seed of the woman (Christ) will crush or defeat the head of the serpent, but the seed of the serpent will bruise the heel of the seed of the woman (Christ) referring to the cross.
Again it is a promise of a coming Messiah. I don't interpret Scripture on your terms based on your theology, but rather how I believe they are to be interpreted.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK,

Put your arrogance on your own shelf and listen up!! Genesis 3:15 is in the midst of a Curse. It is in no way, shape or form a covenant. The Lord was speaking to Satan (the serpent), saying:

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman..."
Are you saying that God is making a covenant with the Serpent!!!!!!!!
That is who he is addressing in Genesis 3:15.
There is no covenant here!!!
However, in the midst of what he said there is hidden a promise--the promise of the coming Messiah. That is not a covenant.

Actually....God is speaking to Moses explaining what took place as Moses was not there. In relaying the events of the fall and curse.....he begins to explain how the Covenant of Redemption now being made known unto man is now what we learn later is the Covenant of Grace.