The New Covenant

[Darrell C]

Just wondering if anyone would like to have a serious discussion about the New Covenant and how it applies to the Church.

I feel it is not truly discussed among believers as much as it really should be, despite what our views may lead us to conclude, as to whether this Covenant has in fact replaced the First Covenant, or, as some believe, it is for Israel alone, and will not be in force until God brings it to bear in the life of Israel.

Serious discussion only, please.

I will give a start to discussion by saying that I do believe the New Covenant has been enacted, and that the Church benefits from this Covenant through relationship with God through the work of Christ, and began on the Day of Pentecost, when the Comforter was given.

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

I will give a start to discussion by saying that I do believe the New Covenant has been enacted, and that the Church benefits from this Covenant through relationship with God through the work of Christ, and began on the Day of Pentecost, when the Comforter was given.

God bless.

The implications of the New Covenant are far greater than many Chrisyians are willing to face. This New Covenant was first definitively promised through the Prophet Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Notice that in Verse 34 we have the promise: I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. Also in Verse 34 we have the promise: I will remember their sin no more.. We see fulfilment of these promises in the Scripture of the New Testament; the New Birth [regeneration], the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the forgiveness of sin.

The Apostle John takes note of the promise of Verse 34 when he records the following:

John 6:45.
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Most importantly our Lord and Savior at the Last Supper with His disciples tells us:

Matthew 26:6-28
26, And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27, And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus Christ tells us: this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. He could just as well have said: this is my blood of the NEW COVENANT, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. since in the New Testament covenant and testament translate the same Greek word.

And then there is the Book of Hebrews where we are told:

Hebrews 8: 6-13
6. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9. Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11. And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13.In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

We have esentially a word for word reiteration of the promise given through the Prophet Jeremish. Note in particular Verse 13:: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Again we read in Hebrews:

Hebrews 10:12-18
12. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13. From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16. This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17. And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Note that in discussing this once for all time sacrifice of Jesus Christ the writer again refers back [Verse 16] to the promise made through the Prophet Jeremiah of a New Covenant. In Verse 12 we see that Jesus Christ has made one sacrifice for sins for ever, There will be no more sacrifice for sin, We have the Lords Supper as a memorial of the sacrifice. There is no need for the blood of bulls and goats, even as a memorial, there is no more offering for sin. The Mosaic Covenant, the Old Covenant, has passed away never to reappear. The temple with its blood sacrifices is gone forever. The New Covenant is in force never to be replaced. It is only the false doctrine of many that this truth is so vehemently denied! May God help them to understand the truth of Scripture!

 

[Darrell C]

OR, it was a pleasure to read this, and I am in agreement with just about everything said, though I think we probably could have some discussion concerning this:

The temple with its blood sacrifices is gone forever.

Because we differ in our views concerning eschatological matters we will differ concerning this, myself believing that there will come a time when there will be a Temple rebuilt and Jews will again sacrifice, and lean heavily toward a Temple in the Millennial Kingdom.

But I would rather focus on the matter of the New Covenant itself, rather than get sidetracked.

The New Covenant is in force never to be replaced.

Agree 100%.

Why return to shadow when the true is in place.

It is only the false doctrine of many that this truth is so vehemently denied!

I try to consider my own understanding after being saved, and try to consider that most that hold views differently than mine are not false teachers specifically seeking to work against the Gospel, but simply unlearned, and hopefully...learning.

May God help them to understand the truth of Scripture!

Which is one of the great things about the forums: they provide an avenue of learning for all of us, as we examine the views and beliesf of others.

Again, enjoyed the post.

Are there any other passages you consider to speak of the New Covenant in the New Testament?

God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

here are a couple;

5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

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

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

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

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

6But 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.

7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

 

[Darrell C]

Thanks, Iconoclast.

God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't know whether this is the sort of thing you're looking for, but the great Puritan, John Owen, in his great commentary on Hebrews, gave seventeen ways in which the New Covenant is better than the Old. I list them below with some brief comments of my own:-

1. They differ in the time of their establishment. The first was established in the third month after the coming out from Egypt of the Israelites (Exod 19:1). The second, ‘At just the right time’ (Rom 5:6, NIV); ‘In the dispensation of the fullness of time’ (Eph 1:10). ‘When the fullness of the time was come’ (Gal 4:4). ‘When the Day of Pentecost had fully come….’ (Acts 2:1).
2. They differ in the place of their establishment. The first covenant, in Sinai; the new covenant, in Jerusalem; but in this connection it is worth reading Gal 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Heb 12:18-26). The first came with fire and the sound of a trumpet (Exod 19:18f); the New came with a voice from heaven (Psalm 110:4; Matt 3:17).
4. They differ in their mediators. In the first covenant , it was Moses, who was faithful as a servant (Heb 3:5); in the New, it was Christ, a Son over His own house (Heb 3:6; 2Tim 2:5).
5. They differ in their subject matter. The first covenant revived the demands of the covenant of works with Moses saying, “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26). In the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts with Christ saying, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt 11:30), and we find ourselves saying, ‘His commandments are not grievous’ (1John 5:3, A.V.).
6. They differ in the manner of their dedication. In the first covenant, it was by the sacrifice of beasts and the blood sprinkled around the altar (Lev 8, 9). The New was confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ Himself (Heb 10:19-23; 12:24).
7. They differ in respect of the Priesthood. In the first covenant, the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his posterity; in the New, Christ has an unchangeable priesthood in the power of an endless life (Heb 7:11-28).
8. They differ in the matter of their sacrifices and their access to God. The Aaronic high priest could enter in to the Holist Place only once a year having sacrificed for his own sins as well as those of the people; our Great High Priest had no sins of His own to atone for, but, ‘Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb 9:12).
9. They differ in the matter of their writing down. The first covenant was written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the New on ‘tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart’ (2Cor 3:3).
10. They differ as to their purposes. ‘The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it and to set bounds to it’ (John Owen; cf. Gal 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Rom 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2Cor 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It appears that during the period of the first covenant, the Holy Spirit was indeed active, but there was so much a wide and greater effusion of His power at Pentecost, that John speaks sometimes as if He had not come before (John 7:39; 15:26 etc.).
13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. The term ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ does not appear in the O.T. Israel under the first covenant had the appearance of a kingdom of the world (physical borders, an army, a physical temple). The kingdom of God has none of these things. The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:26). His subjects are spread throughout the earth, and have their citizenship in heaven.
14. They differ in their substance and end. The first covenant was typical, shadowy and removable. The new covenant is substantial and permanent as containing the Body, which is Christ.
15. They differ in the extent of their ministration. The first covenant was largely confined to Israel after the flesh, with darkness reigning all around. In the new covenant, we read, ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light’ (Isaiah 9:2).
16. They differ in efficacy. The first covenant ‘made nothing perfect’ (Heb 7:19; cf. 8:7). It gave outward commands without giving the power to perform them (cf. Acts 15:10). In the new covenant, 'Says the Lord, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts”’ (Heb 8:10).
17. They differ in their duration. One was to be removed; one to abide forever (Heb 10:8-9).


We see therefore that the new covenant is the outworking of all God’s plans and promises, which are seen to be ‘Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus’ (2Cor 1:20). The new covenant is in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20) and cannot possibly fail (cf. Isaiah 42:4). It was planned and arranged in eternity, so that it is called the ‘everlasting covenant’ (Heb 13:20-21 etc.), and Christ, ‘The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev 13:8). It is the consummation of all the covenants of promise (eg. John 8:56; Acts 2:30), and ‘the end of the law (that is, its purpose and fulfillment) for righteousness to everyone who believes’ (Rom 10:40).

 

[OldRegular]

Great post!

I have Owen's seven volume commentary on Hebrews. Thought when I retired I would find time to read it. Not yet. Some of the old Saints had a hard time using a period.

 

[convicted1]

Jesus was/is the fulfillment of the Law. He ushered in a better hope. The Law was our schoolmaster that brought us to Christ. We are no longer under the schoolmaster, but under Grace/Christ.

 

[Darrell C]

Excellent post, Martin, thanks for that.

God bless.

 

[percho]

IMHO John Owen missed either one or eighteen whichever end it should go on.

Under the Old, the people said, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." Ex 19:8
Under the New, God said, "I will."

Matt 19:16 " Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"
24-26 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Ex 14:13 stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD,

 

[Martin Marprelate]

IMHO John Owen missed either one or eighteen whichever end it should go on.

Under the Old, the people said, "All that the LORD hath spoken we will do." Ex 19:8
Under the New, God said, "I will."

I think you're quite right.

Exodus 19:5-6. 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant , then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

1 Peter 2:9-10. 'But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him that called you out of darkness and in to His marvellous light; who once were not a people, but now are the people of God, who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.'

Steve

 

[agedman]

When I first opened this thread, I thought it would be a discussion on the new covenant theology.

For those who don't know, New covenant theology is just beginning to emerge as a blend of covenant theology and dispensation theology. There are many variations, and the attempts are a bit faulty, but there is growing progress.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When I first opened this thread, I thought it would be a discussion on the new covenant theology.

For those who don't know, New covenant theology is just beginning to emerge as a blend of covenant theology and dispensation theology. There are many variations, and the attempts are a bit faulty, but there is growing progress.

I'm neutral on this but why is a blended emerging theology a good thing? For example couldn't every one on this board pick what they want from column A & then Column B & name it some "NEW" Theology? Seems your describing it as "Nuance" as apposed to radically different. So from my prospective, there is nothing 'NEW" about it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

.

I feel it is not truly discussed among believers as much as it really should be, despite what our views may lead us to conclude, as to whether this Covenant has in fact replaced the First Covenant, or, as some believe, it is for Israel alone, and will not be in force until God brings it to bear in the life of Israel.

God bless.

Obviously not Darrell because in less that two years of being Saved, Ive never heard of it & never saw it discussed on BB until I mentioned it in prior threads.

Thats not a criticism, rather a observation. However it leads me to believe that it is not established, nor complete nor are there a ton of devotees to it.

I would love to see a real detail on it & some statistical data to back it up. This appears to be the "Huntsman" of theologies......do you have to learn Mandarin? :laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

Obviously not Darrell because in less that two years of being Saved, Ive never heard of it & never saw it discussed on BB until I mentioned it in prior threads.

Thats not a criticism, rather a observation. However it leads me to believe that it is not established, nor complete nor are there a ton of devotees to it.

I would love to see a real detail on it & some statistical data to back it up. This appears to be the "Huntsman" of theologies......do you have to learn Mandarin? :laugh:

Unfortunately the New Covenant is not discussed much in Baptist Churches because many lean toward dispensationalism. The teaching of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper is that the New Covenant [called New Testament there] as promised in Jeremiah is in force now. Furthermore, God is not the Author of confusion and the Book of Hebrews is very specific that Jesus Christ instituted the New Covenant.

 

[Darrell C]

When I first opened this thread, I thought it would be a discussion on the new covenant theology.

For those who don't know, New covenant theology is just beginning to emerge as a blend of covenant theology and dispensation theology. There are many variations, and the attempts are a bit faulty, but there is growing progress.

Hello Agedman, this is a different thread than the one which discusses NCTers.

This thread is discussion concerning the New Covenant as found in scripture.

As far as "New covenant theology is just beginning to emerge as a blend of covenant theology and dispensation theology," I would say that I believe that while there may be a group which is "emerging" running under a denominational "label," I do not believe that doctrinal understanding of the New Covenant is something new, which is what I hope to discuss in this thread.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I'm neutral on this but why is a blended emerging theology a good thing?

Concerning NCTers as discussed in the other thread, I would again reiterate that we would need to know specifically what they teach in order to discern whether it is emerging, or reemerging.

For example couldn't every one on this board pick what they want from column A & then Column B & name it some "NEW" Theology?

Not without opposition...lol.

They can, but it will be measured according to the rule of scripture.

Seems your describing it as "Nuance" as apposed to radically different. So from my prospective, there is nothing 'NEW" about it.

I think you may have mistaken this thread for another (I am wondering if I have not done the same...lol).

This thread discusses the New Covenant as found in scripture, apart from any group that may either go by a "cavenantal" name, or express their belief of covenants in general as falling under either one or even three conceptual statements of belief.

As discussed in the other thread, I believe that all of the covenants could be viewed as falling under one general work, which is the redemption of man, accomplished by God. One person stated something similar, though we disagree as to the end result and application.

Obviously not Darrell because in less that two years of being Saved, Ive never heard of it & never saw it discussed on BB until I mentioned it in prior threads.

Isn't that odd? A few passages have been presented in this thread so far, have you looked at them?

I think the member that suggested that is not discussed much due to worry of overstepping another theology system may be right.

I myself do not see a problem with recognizing what scripture teaches, and by doing so, I believe that the positions I hold are on solid ground, without contradiction. Of course, some may disagree...lol.

Thats not a criticism, rather a observation.

It is one I have made myself, which is why I think it important to recognize what scripture has to say concerning the New Covenant and how that applies to us, the Church.

However it leads me to believe that it is not established,

If you mean the New Covenant, I don't know how we can see what scripture has to say in the New Yestament...and think that it is not.

I have talked with those who absolutely refute that the New Covenant is established, and I believe that is due to thinking that the Church must be separate from Israel. I believe most would agree that there will be One Shepherd, One Fold, therefore, One People of God.

nor complete

For Israel, nationally, no. Not until the veil be taken away, that they might see.

nor are there a ton of devotees to it.

I have pleasantly surprised that there have been several that recognize this New Testament teaching.

I would love to see a real detail on it & some statistical data to back it up.

Just not necessary, nor would it provide infallible proof...of anything.

Statistics record a very high percentage of America as being...Christian.

But that is the reason for this thread, to examine the New Covenant in scripture, particularly in relation to the work of Christ and how that applies to the Church.

This appears to be the "Huntsman" of theologies......do you have to learn Mandarin? :laugh:

Not even going to pretend I know what you mean here.

Look forward to your participation in the thread, though.

God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it's difficult to come to grips with the New Covenant without reference to the other covenants in the Bible. I think this is where NCT goes wrong.

This is something I wrote on my blog a while ago:-
http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/the-covenants-part-1-the-covenant-of-works/

What is a covenant? The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is Bara, which comes from a root word meaning ‘bonds’ or ‘yokes.’ The idea is of two parties binding themselves to perform some mutually agreed action. The Greek word is diatheke, which means a ‘disposition’ or ‘arrangement.’ The puritan John Owen defined a covenant as, ‘A voluntary convention, pact, agreement between distinct persons about the ordering and dispensing of things in their power, to their mutual concern or advantage.’ A simpler definition might be, ‘A mutual agreement, a benefit being assured on the fulfilment of certain conditions.’

There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters. However, God’s unmerited love towards sinners means that His covenantal plans bring blessings to those who are without power or strength (Rom 5:8 ).

I propose to discuss the covenants under the following structure:-

Two covenants transacted between God and a Covenant or Representative head. These are the so-called Covenant of Works made with Adam, and the Covenant of Grace made with Christ.

Four covenants of Promise (cf. Eph 2:12 ). These are the covenants with Adam (Gen 3:15-21 ), with Noah, with Abraham and with David. These are covenants with individuals, purely gracious, and having reference to a coming ‘Seed.’

Two covenants made between God and a people: the Old (or ‘First’ or ‘Mosaic’) Covenant and the New Covenant. One is made with physical decendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the other is made with their spiritual descendants. One is made with reference to the law; the other with reference to faith. The New Covenant is discovered to be nothing else but the Covenant of Grace revealed and realized and the consummation of all the covenants (Col 1:26; Heb 13:20. cf. Exod 2:24; Psalm 111:5; Ezek 16:60-61; Luke 1:72 ).

Steve

 

[percho]

If each of you would be so kind as to answer a few questions I would like to examine this question of the New Covenant.

A. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

B. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Of the two above which is the more advanced of our state of being in the image of the Son of God, Jesus the Christ?

Was not the Old Covenant made with a people whose state of being was in the physical corruptible flesh subject to death.
God did beget in the seed of the woman Mary a son physical, subject to corruption and death named Jesus and he died. When God the Father raised Jesus his Son from the dead was it in the physical subject again to corruption and death or did he raise him as a life giving (quickening) spiritual
Son, the firstborn from the dead?

Are those presently today who have been given the Holy Spirit of promise by God still flesh and blood subject to death and corruption?

Is it by the New Covenant they received this promise or do they receive the Spirit by the hearing of faith.

The covenant God made with Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed by God giving the promise of the Holy Spirit through the faith of Jesus Christ who is the only one presently to have received the promised inheritance of eternal life.

Read Galatians three. It was by the hearing of Abraham's seed of promise, the heir of God being obedient unto death even the death of the cross and God the Father raising him from the dead and giving him, Jesus the promise of the Holy Spirit that it can be shed of us.

That is the faith by which we can be made spiritual, incorruptible not subject to die again beings at the coming of Christ. We will then be born with the very laws of God in our hearts. We will then never sin again for we will not be able to sin for we will be born of God and his seed will be in us forever.

The New Covenant will be with a spirit born, spiritual unable to sin people the manifested sons of God.

JMHO

 

[Darrell C]

I think it's difficult to come to grips with the New Covenant without reference to the other covenants in the Bible. I think this is where NCT goes wrong.

Hello Steve, I actually checked out the link (something I seldom do when it is not directly biblical such as Strong's, et cetera), and though the article very good, but, it seems to be that the "conceptual presentation" seems strikingly similar to the doctrinal statement of NCTers in the other thread.

Am I missing something here?

Are you saying that NCTers deny the other covenants in scripture?