ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 The New Covenant
 What is the New Covenant?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic 
Page: of 6

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2015 :  11:01:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James and Samuel,

I have gone to great length to show that the Ten Commandments are the OLD Covenant, and it is wrong to believe that there is some magical power to obey them granted under the New Covenant.

Yes, I know that many churches teach this, but it simply is not what the New Testament teaches.

Here is yet another confirmation: John says many times in I John how important it is that we "keep his commandments", and it might be easy to presume that he is speaking of the Ten Commandments. But in chapter 3, starting at verse 21 we see this repeated yet again, but with a follow up of telling us EXACTLY what commandments he is referring to.

These are indeed the ONLY commandments of the New Covenant, and John agrees completely with Paul in disposing of the Ten Commandments by way of the simpler commandment. I know that this will leave some questions unanswered for you, but we must get beyond this bondage to the Law before we can even contemplate the fullness of the New Covenant. At present, you are bent on promoting the religion of the Pharisees over the gospel of Christ.

21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.


Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 24 Aug 2015 :  14:06:07  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb and Samual,

I will make a post shortly which will address the information provided by Caleb. This should be in a few hours. Suffice it to say for now that Caleb can quote one scripture, without the context, and show his point. So I will quote one scripture out of context and show an opposing view.

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:31 NIV)

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31 KJV)

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Rom 3:31 NIV)

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Rom 3:31 NAS)

These versions, as well as the Greek agree! So to determine that 1 John 3 simply overrides the rest of scripture is questionable at best. Also notice in the text of 1 John 3, there is the commandment (singular) and the commandments (plural), is this significant? Compare 2 John 1:4-6. Is it possible that with the correct understanding of 1 John 3, that these scriptures actually agree? I will emphatically say yes! The next post will answer these questions, I think, finally.

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 26 Aug 2015 :  15:00:35  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Thank you Caleb for the response:

As I mentioned, I have been traveling; I have gone to Missouri to see my third newly born great-granddaughter. What a blessing. This is the cause for the delay. I must be honest, not all that sorry due to the circumstance. Following this I traveled to a celebration of one of my grandson’s coming of age.

I would be unwise to think anyone would believe that I have not studied other’s material, and in this sense did not “come up with this on my own.” I have gained insight from many sources, people, denominations and conversations. The conclusions I have reached I have reached through study, prayer, hearing the word, listening to the Spirit of God and “peer review,” but I pray I did not come up with this on my own.

The basis of my discussion revolves around three points:

1. The Ten Commandments are the “law” of the Abrahamic Covenant made 430 years before Sinai, and make up the Covenant spoken and written by God when He “confirmed” it with Israel at Sinai.
2. The Law of Moses, made (cut) at Sinai, became the Old Covenant at and after the death of Messiah and was added to the Covenant of Abraham as a “tutor.”
3. There were TWO Covenants discussed at Sinai, one confirmed, and one “cut,” they are listed above.

These are covered in the numbered sections but with obvious overlap.

Section 1

You say: Deut 4:12-13
"His" Covenant = Ten Commandments on two tables of stone
You say: No mention of a second covenant with Moses and Israel.

First, You now admit the Ten Commandments are a Covenant stated so in the Word, as opposed to your previous assertion.

I would question your conclusion on this verse, for the following reasons, via scripture.

And He declared unto you His covenant, which HE COMMANDED YOU to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Covenant one) 14 AND the LORD COMMANDED ME at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. (Deu 4:13-14 KJV) 9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel. (Covenant two) (Deu 31:9 KJV)

It seems to me very clear that in this scripture there is the covenant that “He (God) declared” and wrote (No mediator) and God command Moses to teach and write (Moses as mediator). Review the scriptures and see how the concept of “as God commanded Moses” is used. It is used well over a hundred times - this is the mediation process. God tells Moses, Moses tells the people. This is the administration of the “Law of Moses” working as a “tutor.” This process was because the people rejected God speaking directly. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. (Exo 20:19 KJV)

Moses Covenant became the “tutor” and was added to the original Covenant. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions (of the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ), till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Gal 3:17-19 KJV) You KNOW this. Your comment “no mention” does not negate the fact that you know the truth. You know the Covenant of Abraham existed, and had relation to the Old Covenant. And now you know that the Ten Words are one of the two Covenants. Galatians 4 does not indicate that there are three covenants. “…for these are the two covenants (Gal 4:24 KJV)…” Abraham’s and Moses’! There are not three covenants in relation to this examination.

You admit freely that the Covenant of Moses was given at Sinai. To say that Israel was not given two covenants is simply to miss or ignore the plain text of scripture.

You say: People do not understand what "agape" is, nor [sic] how to achieve it. As a consequence, they revert back to the Ten Commandments, which they do understand!

This is nice rhetoric, but how does the Bible define it? What does the scripture mean when it give us clear guidance as to how we know if we love? The Bible says, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1Jo 5:2-3 KJV)

Please present your Biblical definition of “agape” love! Use the scripture, not your thoughts. Feel free to expound your understanding of the scripture, but define it from the scripture.

Section 2

You say, "Book of" the covenant - not very helpful since this term is never used again in the Pentateuch.

While the exact term is not again in the Pentateuch, per se, the variations and concept are there several times. “…curses of the covenant that are written in this book of the law:” (Deu 29:21 KJV) this connects the book of the law and the covenant. Examine “book of the law.” And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deu 31:24 KJV) Note the book is not the law, but the book contains the law, as it is today. Following the concept of the “book of the Covenant Law” through the Pentateuch and the other writings of the Hebrew scripture is quite helpful.

You say: None of them are called the "Old" covenant, because at that time there was only one covenant with the people of Israel.

The idea that the words “Old Covenant” are not referenced in the Pentateuch is valid. Yet again, the New Testament reveals the reason! 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. (Heb 8:13 KJV)

The Mosaic Covenant BECAME the Old covenant upon validation of the Covenant of Abraham via the blood of the Messiah! It was not termed Old Covenant until Christ “fulfilled (perfectly observed and fulfilled the prophecies) the Law” and fulfilled, or confirmed the Covenant of Abraham in His blood.

You say: If there was more than one, [covenant] surely Moses would have been careful enough to distinguish between the two.

It has been pointed out that there was distinction between the two. (See July 13 post) We know that the Covenant of Abraham did not go away. We know that it was “cut” 430 years before Moses. We know Moses made a clear distinction when he wrote in the “book of the Law,” “These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” (Deu 5:22 KJV) He added no more! It seems to me that Moses was very careful in distinguishing that the Ten Words were specific and were not added to in the sense of modifying them.

Another distinguishing factor is revealed in the New Testament with regard to circumcision. Circumcision was not instituted under the Mosaic (Old) covenant. While it is true that Moses “administered” it through the Old Covenant, it was not an Old Covenant institution, but was a seal of the Abrahamic Covenant. “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;)…” (John 7:22 KJV, Acts 3:13) And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. (Rom 4:11-12 KJV) In the transition from the administration of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, physical circumcision was converted to circumcision of the heart in water baptism. This is why “…Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” (Mat 3:15, Rom 2:29, Col 2, Rom 6)

Here Abraham is the “father of circumcision” to the Israelites (the circumcision) and the gentiles (uncircumcised).

If circumcision is from Abraham and was not of Moses, and it is a sign and seal of the Covenant, what covenant? The Mosaic Covenant was a “tutor” or an “overlay” on the Covenant of Abraham “until the seed should come” who is Christ. Moses’ Covenant was for the purpose of administration and tutoring. The letter of the New Covenant kills, but the spirit of the New Covenant gives life. (2 Cor 3) The New Covenant was “written and engraved in stone” during the administration of the Tutor. This affirms the New Covenant is the Ten Commandments and clarifies the administration of it during the time of Moses’ Covenant.

** You say: Nehemiah 9
This one is interesting, but it actually sinks your theory. On the one hand there does appear to be the distinction you wish to make between the Law of God and the Law of Moses, but on the other hand this would mean that Nehemiah was referring to ONLY Ten brief commandments when he says, "right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments." Did a mere 10 commandments really also contain "laws", "statutes" and "judgments"?

You make an interesting and observant point. Think of this. As it is true that the AGAPE love is one; so it is clarified by two; love God, and Love your neighbor. Loving your neighbor as thyself is called the “royal law.” (James 2:8) So the second of the two great commandments is called a law. In the same way, those two are revealed more clearly by the Ten which clarify loving God and your neighbor. I earlier termed these ramifications. Jesus identified one of the Ten and made further clarification by saying, “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Mat 5:28 KJV) But this teaching was also identified previously. “For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine heart. (Pro 6:23-25 KJV) Here we have the commandment shown to be part of the law and also as reproof. Application and ramifications explain the use of the terms. In addition see next paragraph.

Take special note that “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen 26:5 KJV) The Ten Commandments are A Law, they are also individual laws, and can be reproofs, which are judgments of compliance or failure to comply etc. Any attempt to push aside a large volume of scripture by attempting to push minutia of wording, I think, is without foundation. There is no list of the charge, commandments, statutes and laws that God gave to Abraham. The fact that they were given is without any reasonable doubt.

You say: Galatians 3
Here Paul contrasts "the covenant" with "the law". From the context we know that the covenant is the New Covenant, which also relates to the promise to Abraham. The Law is The Law, which is also called the Old Covenant.

Here we agree fully. You concede there are two covenants! A thought that will be needed for understanding is; the verbiage of the two Covenants are called LAW. Therefore using Covenant or Law for either is perfectly valid, depending on the emphasis that you are giving. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. (Jam 2:11-12 KJV). Note here that the Ten Commandments are termed law, and more, the law of liberty. In 1:25, the perfect law of liberty.

If this is compared with “Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which genders to bondage, which is Agar. (Gal 4:24 KJV). Again, “Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Heb 9:9-10 KJV)

The time of reformation is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Abraham at the cross. The Covenant Law that gives birth to bondage is the Law of Moses.

YET, notice! For we know that the law is spiritual: (Rom 7:14 KJV). So this begs the question: What law is spiritual? Which has carnal ordinances? But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (Jam 1:25 KJV)

Mosaic Covenant: Engender bondage, Carnal ordinances, standing only in meats and drinks, IMPOSED on them until…. Paul warned, be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. (Gal 5:1 KJV)

New Covenant: Law of liberty, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:10 KJV) Love is not the fulfilling of the carnal commandments! Love is the motivating factor that causes one to be obedient to the terms of the Covenant, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Are these two contrasting and opposing ideas referring to the same Law? Same Covenant? NO. The context will reveal easily which of the two covenants are at issue. Also remember that the Covenant of Abraham existed before, during and after the administration of the Law of Moses. This has been shown clearly.

You say: Yet Paul has chosen "covenant" to refer to the New Covenant and "Law" to refer to the Old Covenant. His choice of wording is exactly opposite to yours!

See previous regarding Law and Covenant: Also, Covenant and Law are valid for either Old or New Covenant. Law also is used as law in a general sense; Law of the spirit of life, law of sin and death, etc. So in one discussion I can clarify the distinction between the two Covenants by referencing one as Law and the other as Covenant, and in another discussion reverse the usage, and both are perfectly valid. The following scripture (and others) confirms the interchangeability of these concepts and words. “Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant” (Psa 105:9-10 KJV) So the scripture interchanges the usage of law and covenant, even in the same verse. So reversing the usage is completely scriptural.

You say: [other words are used] when referring to the covenant, but the term, "law" only appears twice: In Deuteronomy 4, it appears in verses 8 and 44, both before and after the passage you cite.

While this is true, note that the passage DEFINES what the term “law” here is referring to: It is referring to the “body of law” which contains the precepts, statutes, judgments, etc. The scripture reads as follows: And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as ALL THIS LAW, which I set before you this day? (Deu 4:8 KJV) This is Moses’ Law, or Covenant, or Law of the Covenant or in our vernacular terms of the Agreement. Remember also that the Abrahamic Covenant was extant and was being “administered” through this law and was also recorded in the “book of the law.” Again review the interchangeability of the terms Covenant and Law. The two terms are simply different aspects of the same concept.

Section 3

You wrote, “Your concept of two different covenants at Mount Sinai, one in Exodus 19 and the other in Exodus 24, is anything but obvious, and is not the accepted view of any major denomination that I am aware of.”

I agree that it is not the accepted view, as I said on July 19, “My understanding is far from that of the Protestant churches.” Yet you wrote, “This heresy of yours is in all the churches, and yet you claim it ‘is far from that of the Protestant churches.’ That is simply a lie.” Please clarify how you have concluded this is a “lie” and are able to write the previous statement that you agree with my original statement.

Even though you wrote that there was only one Covenant at the time of Moses, I will state unequivocally that you are aware that there were two covenants once Moses provided his Covenant to Israel. (see your comment on Gal 3 above).The Covenant of Abraham, cut with Abraham 430 years earlier, and the Covenant through (of) Moses. The only question is how those two are defined at the time of Moses.

There are many things written in the Old Testament books that are only partially revealed, or “shadows” of the teachings (Heb 8:5). There are many things that are revealed more clearly in the New Testament which clarify what the Old Testament was putting forward. Reading the New Testament without an understanding of the Old Testament can cause one to “wrest the scriptures,” and vise versa.

** You say: There is certainly nothing to distinguish that Israel made two separate covenants.

How about this! “He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: (Psa 105:8-10 KJV)

The Covenant of Abraham was confirmed to Israel. The law of Moses was added as a tutor. Two Covenants! This confirmation and addition was done at Sinai. Note specifically that the Covenant of Abraham was CONFIRMED with Israel, the nation.

Galatians 3 contrasts these two. One called the Covenant and one called the Law. There is a promise of the Covenant from God. Because the promise of the Covenant is the focus in some verses does not eliminate the fact that it is the promise of the Covenant of Abraham. The scripture clearly shows that “…the blessing of Abraham (the promise of the Covenant) might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV) The Covenant of Abraham includes the promise of Christ and of His fulfilling/confirming the Covenant of Abraham with His blood. This is the reason the scripture is clear when it states, And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29-1 KJV) (Not just because he had faith and we have faith!)

Also note: For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13 KJV) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the PROMISE might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (Rom 4:16 KJV) This is the same promise, the promise of the Covenant of Abraham.

With regard to Exodus 34: You say:
“…the fact that it contains commands NOT from Exodus 20 tips your whole theory over already.”

While I will admit that we all come to any discussion with our own pre-conceived thinking, and it is often difficult to see our prejudiced views, we must attempt to set them aside to find truth. It is only then that we can compare with all “readiness of mind.”

Your analysis of Exodus 34 reveals your conception as my analysis does mine. So just to give another view, I will comment on your statement and clarify why I see differently.

My view is that to come to the conclusion you penned, you must, again, ignore the text. The first thing that is said is “…and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” (Exo 34:1 KJV) So we know the specifics of what was written on the second set of tablets. The commandments in verses 14-26 that you mention are NOT on the tables of stone. Exodus 34 is NOT a rendition of the tables of stone. In addition, there is another covenant mentioned, this one unilateral. “I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation:” (Exo 34:10 KJV) This was not on the tables. Then God tells Moses, after listing all the commands you mentioned, “Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” (Exo 34:27 KJV) Here again is the separation between what God wrote and what He commanded Moses to write. We know that these things were not in the Ten Words. Note also that God says “after the tenor of (in accordance with) these words.” Not that this was a rendition of the entire covenant, or that the other covenant of miracles would be altered. To attempt to lump these together, which are clearly separate, with the second tables is just wrong. Therefore there is no “tipping over” of the “theory.”

** You say: Yes, here is the making of a covenant, very similar to Exodus 19. What indication do we have that they are different covenants?

We know that there are two covenants. We just need to identify them. Long before God gave the Mosaic Covenant Law, he said of Abraham, “Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen 26:5 KJV) This is the same terms used regarding the 10 Words in Nehemiah in contrasting the source of the two laws and the revelation of the Sabbath after being in Egypt for 400 years. We know that the 10 Words are called the (a) Covenant.

These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me. (Deu 5:22 KJV) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even Ten Commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. This is the confirmation of the Covenant of Abraham.

14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. (Deu 4:13-14 KJV) And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD… 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. (Exo 24:4-7 KJV) This is the Covenant of Moses.

So we have two covenants, one Which God spoke and wrote, and added no more, and we have and the other which Moses wrote and spoke (read) to the people. This indicates that they are different covenants.

** You say: Exodus 19
"my" covenant - What links this to the Abrahamic Covenant?
I will cover this answer in connection with the following answer:

You stated: Genesis 15 - "a" covenant with Abram - Promised land and many descendents - No mention of any rules to follow.

A covenant has terms. Are the terms specifically covered in Genesis 15? Not specifically here, but progressive revelation shows “…and in thy seed (Christ) shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; BECAUSE that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Gen 26:4-5 KJV) Here is mention of rules to follow.

What is the gospel of Jesus Christ? There are many ramifications, but one is “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” (Gal 3:8 KJV) So the gospel of Jesus Christ was revealed to Abraham. What all God told him we do not have record, but we do know that “in thee all nations be blessed” is the promise of Jesus and His salvation ministry.

One difficulty is that there are two sections to the Covenant of Abraham, and few observe that fact. One section is given to the natural seed of Abraham, the Hebrews. The other section is with relation to Jesus Christ. I will not cover this here. However, this is spoken of in Galatians, Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Gal 3:16 KJV) So the distinction between “seeds” and “seed” is revealed. This is the natural physical promises to Israel (based on national obedience), versus the eternal spiritual promise of Jesus Christ’s fulfilling the blood covenant to Abraham, and the promise of the spirit and eternal life. (You cannot inherit the world forever if you do not live forever and this also includes the Hebrews!)

Two things important to notice are:
1. The Promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (the fathers) was to be to them, and “their seed with them.” In other words, they would all inherit the blessing together. And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou may inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. (Gen 28:4 KJV)
2. YET, it is revealed in the New Testament that, “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham…he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. 5 And he gave him NONE INHERITANCE in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession and to his seed with him…” (Act 7:2-5 KJV) (The Greek term translated “after” in some versions is “meta {met-ah'} Meaning: 1) with, after, behind” – I use “with” based on the wording from Genesis)

You say: Abraham's covenant is clear.

Your statement apparently means that it is the Promised Land and descendents. However, I agree that it is clear upon progressive revelation through Genesis and into the New Testament. Abraham never realized the promise, which has been expanded in time and expanse to include the “whole world” forever. The promise of the covenant is still not fully realized. Some of it has been fulfilled, the seed, Jesus, did come, the promise of the Spirit has been given, and other portions remain to be fulfilled.

You say: (Gal 4) This does not speak of "two" laws, but of "the law" and "the promise". Once again, there is nothing to link the Ten Commandments to the promise to Abraham.

You are correct that Gal 4 does not speak of two laws. However, this seems a little disingenuous. It uses the term “two covenants.” (The words of the Covenants are referred to as law etc.) This cannot be ignored! The two Covenants are Covenant of Moses (the law-old covenant) and the New Covenant, which is linked inextricably to Abraham in chapter 3. (You also state this in your comment on Gal 3.) While it is true that Galatians 4 does use the term “the promise” but the context of Galatians is not just chapter 4. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Gal 3:17 KJV) So “the promise” is the promise of the Covenant of Abraham. The New Covenant in 2 Cor 3 is linked to the Ten Commandments, written in stone during the “administration of Death.” We previously looked at several references where the Ten Commandments are referenced throughout the New Testament. Under the New Covenant, they are to be written not on tables of stone, but the fleshly tables of the heart. (2 Cor 3). This is in fulfillment of the Ezek 36:26-27 prophecy.

** You say: Luke 22 While I agree that Jesus instituted the New Covenant here, where are the necessary elements that we find in Exodus 19 and 24? What are the terms of the agreement? Where do the Disciples agree to those terms?

You need to go back and look at the wording that you are referring to. I specifically did NOT say that Jesus instituted the New Covenant in Luke 22.

My wording was “Jesus’ discussion of the institution of the New Covenant is listed here:” and this was followed up with the sentence, “Jesus was pointing forward to the blood which was to be shed on the cross, which confirmed and finalized the New Covenant” or Abrahamic Covenant. At the time of the last Passover with his disciples, the New Covenant blood (Jesus’ blood, or the fulfillment of the animal sacrifices with Abraham) had not been shed! Again, in the clarification made in Hebrews, He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:28-29 KJV) Jesus had taught and clarified the Ten on several occasions previously as well.

Note that Jesus did NOT institute the New Covenant. The covenant “was confirmed … in Christ.” (Gal 3:17)

It is the blood of the Covenant. What Covenant? It is the one referenced in “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” (Gal 3:17 KJV) It is the Covenant of Abraham. You seem to concede this in the your comment on Galatians 3.

You say: Romans 13.
Your misunderstanding about the Ten Commandments is causing you to misread this passage. Its conclusion is: "love is the fulfilling of the law."

It is convenient to inject ideas into the scripture. I prefer to use the scripture to define terms. Love IS the fulfilling of the law, but Romans explains what this means. “9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: THEREFORE love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10 KJV)

If you love God and your neighbor you will be obedient to God by being obedient to His Covenant Law, i.e. you will not bear false witness, covet, etc. Love causes your heart to change and to be obedient to the mandates of the law; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Put another way, from the scripture, “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments:” (1Jo 5:2-3 KJV). We fulfill the obligations of the commandments by loving. Note the next phrase in the scripture set, “…and His commandments are not grievous.” Grievous here is, “heavy in weight.” Jesus said the same when he said “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” But you must understand that there is a yoke and a burden! There is a cross that is to be taken up!

I view your idea of love fulfilling the law as saying that there is no law, no Covenant (as you previously wrote, the New Covenant is No Covenant). It is fulfilled, it is gone. There is nothing in the scripture that I can find that would support this. In addition, Romans disagrees specifically with this conclusion when Paul penned, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Rom 3:31 KJV)

What does establish the law mean?

If you lump the two Covenants together, (or ignore one) then you have major problems with many scriptures. The law is spiritual, the carnal ordinances, the perfect law of liberty, it engenders bondage, etc. These concepts cannot be reconciled with only one covenant as you propose. And this becomes even more problematic if you continue with your idea that the New Covenant is NO covenant. Jesus is the mediator of NO covenant?? How does that work?

You seem to ignore the scripture that clearly shows that the Covenant of Abraham was provided to Israel. I give a clear presentation of God presenting a Covenant before Moses’ Covenant. You previously said, “The Ten Commandment Covenant is nowhere to be found in scripture.” You find that it is in fact in the scripture. You do not acknowledge that you were wrong and need to “understand the way of God more perfectly,” you simply say well it is not called a second Covenant. How can you ignore the scriptures? You do not comment on them. You simply present the things you want, and ignore clear statements of scripture.

You said, “None of them are called the "Old" covenant, because at that time THERE WAS ONLY ONE COVENANT WITH THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL.” I explained why “old” was not used then, but I also showed that the “…covenant He made with Abraham… And confirmed the same … to Israel for an everlasting covenant: (Psa 105:9-10 KJV). There were two covenants, Abraham’s and Moses’.

You cannot get around the obvious text of the scripture. This covenant was “cut” with Abraham long (430 years) before Moses. It did not disappear, and it is readily seen in the New Testament, still functioning as you previously noted! Note again, that God confirmed it. The Covenant of Moses was “cut” in Exodus 24:8 where it is stated “…Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made (Hebrew karath=cut) with you concerning all these words. (Exo 24:8 KJV) That is the point of the sprinkling of the blood! A different covenant was cut, the one that “engenders bondage” in Gal 4.The other one had been confirmed by the voice and finger of God writing at Sinai and from which we receive the promise of the Spirit.

The New Covenant has terms, summarized in the Ten Commandments. Jesus’ blood pays for the violation of these terms. This is called sin. (Violation of a blood covenant is paid for by the death of the violator.) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1Jo 3:4 KJV) The wages of sin is death. Jesus came to deliver us from the penalty of sin, and the power of sin. If there is no law, there can be no sin! “…And where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Rom 4:15 NIV) Study the term “iniquity.” Iniquity is “anomia” in the Greek and means “lawlessness” or “the condition of being without law.” This is the mystery of iniquity, the mystery of lawlessness.

This will be my final post. If there is any interest in further study, I will be happy to post my email if requested. My side of this “disputing and persuading the things concerning the Kingdom of God” is finished. If there are any specific refutations or questions that are requested to be answered, I will consider those. The question as to "What is the New Covenant and the Old Covenant?" that was originally posted has been answered with scripture that supports the position. The errors have been identified.


James Snyder

Edited by - jsnyder3395 on 04 Sep 2015 10:22:19
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 04 Sep 2015 :  22:03:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thank you James and Caleb,
It is finished?

Blessings to you all,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2015 :  02:05:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Manuel,

James has just added further obfuscation, with such brilliant biblical exegesis as reading the entirety of the Ten Commandments into the letter "s", when 1 John makes no mention of the Ten Commandments whatsoever, and John goes so far as to specifically list what commandment(s) he is talking about. I am finished with James.

Were I not dangerously close to the truth, there would be no need for James to have registered here for the sole purpose of sidetracking this discussion. It was not going anywhere anyway, but it was important to someone that people be steered in the exact opposite direction: Back to the Old Covenant and bondage under the Law.

I have other things I hoped to share here, but they require a clear understanding of the New Covenant. And there are so many wrong opinions out there about it that I think people need to work through these issues in their own minds, and not merely read my view. Thus I chose to dole out my insights in an interactive manner, but no one other than James has carried on after the first few posts. Either people think they already know what the New Covenant is, or they think it is not worth understanding more fully. But either way, the conversation has failed to move forward in a productive manner.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2015 :  14:54:07  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb and Manuel et. al.

Caleb says, and it is true that, "...1 John makes no mention of the Ten Commandments whatsoever."
Yet 1 John makes no mention of the New Covenant!

Caleb says, "These are indeed the ONLY commandments of the New Covenant"

How is this different than his pointing out the lack of mention of the Ten Commandments? He just chose a verse and says these are the only commandments of the New Covenant. The Bible does not say that! Caleb seems to be leading people down a path that the Bible warns of, "lawlessness." Caleb has been shown to have posted mis-information, and he accuses me of lies on those things in later posts he has to admit.

Caleb has been asked to post his understanding of "agape" and of the New Covenant. He has held this "gnostic" view back and will not reveal it to "un-gnostics." This did not Jesus.

I will quote again, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Rom 3:31-1 KJV)

My grandfather made a statement to me many years ago, and it stuck with me, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Go back and read the errors Caleb has posted, and posted differently later in the blog. There is a reason for that.

Again we have a simple "wipe of the hand" and everything from the Word of God posted is simply gone. It is really too bad. Caleb seems to be leading down a road that the Bible warns against, that is the road of "lawlessness." Caleb says there is no law, just love. That is by definition "lawlessness."


James Snyder

Edited by - jsnyder3395 on 05 Sep 2015 21:30:49
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 06 Sep 2015 :  02:34:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 13:34

"Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth." 1 John 2:7-8

We see that John's somewhat puzzling statement in 1 John 2 makes perfect sense once we see that it is at the same time:
1) The "new" commandment spoken of by Jesus, and
2) The original commandment that preceded the Ten Commandments, as even James S. agrees that the promise to Abraham is the New Covenant and not the Old.

So these are direct references by John to the New Covenant, in contradistinction to the Ten Commandments. This is the plain meaning of the language. It makes no sense if you try to have John importing the Ten Commandments anywhere into 1 John.

How can one commandment be both "new" and "old" at the same time? It is "new" if it replaces other commandments. But it is "old" if it is "older" also than those commandments it replaces. Hence, there must be some "other" commandment or commandments interposing in the middle.

The most important thing that is not understood by the modern church is WHY this new commandment replaces the Ten Commandments. It is hoped that we will eventually be discussing that.

James, I suspect that you do not know why the early church condemned Gnosticism as a heresy. While the term "gnosis" is indeed the Greek for "knowledge", it was not the quest for special knowledge that was the problem. You are merely using the term in a derogatory fashion, as your purpose here is to discredit me.

Your motives are laid bare by your repeated false assertion that I contradict myself. Every time you have made this claim, you have done so by first misrepresenting what I have said. My stance is consistent, and has once again been shown to align with the straight reading of Scripture.

I suspect that your charge of "lawlessness" will have evoked at least a chuckle from every long-term member here, as every single one of them will have heard this accusation leveled at themselves as well. In this case, you simply show that you don't know the history of this forum, nor do you understand the three stages of biblical consciousness or awareness that are laid out in the Bible.

Love is the highest stage, while lawlessness is the lowest of the three. We are presently living under the Law, in the middle stage. I am pointing people onward and upward to that highest stage spoke of by Christ. Love is the fulfillment of the Law. Properly understood, it does away with the Law and brings us to a better place in full harmony with God's will. Love does not in any way return us to that depraved state of lawlessness which the entire Bible militates against.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2015 :  10:44:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings Caleb, James, and all,
Yet, without Love, is void of Faith, Hope and Charity,
without force, making "The Law of God to non effect."

Is there not a sign of what is going on of this and those
"worlds" whereby FORCE is coveting everybody's goods?
Is that not violating The Law of God? For Love IS Charity,
not just to strive to help and pray/apply to make the
weak strong, not weaker?

Look around and afar; we see and are feeling more and more,
the afterMATH of such unrighteous "eating."

Blessings,
Manuel

Edited by - Manuel on 07 Sep 2015 10:46:08
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2015 :  11:04:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
At the heart of all Law is enFORCEment.

What good is "Thou shalt not steal", unless you punish thieves?

The day that theft is no longer punished, we know that the Law has been done away with. So long as we agree to punish theft, we agree to live under the Law.

But this is not God's way. Agape can never be enforced. It is a law that exists only in the heart of those who live by it. They are compelled to do nothing. They obey God out of a desire to do so.

We know that we have understood Christ's perfect commandment when we can see our way clearly to obeying it without the use of force.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2015 :  11:56:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes. "Go, and sin no more," is a quick
way to "Come out." Repent.

The "whole world" is Lawless due to coveting
their neighbors goods, oppessing, therefore not Loving their
neighbors. An "ism" of Socialism - Nihil.

Blessings,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2015 :  12:40:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Manuel,

Let's take a mental journey one step backwards from coveting.

God has just created the whole world: lock, stock and barrel.

You are placed into a fruitful garden not of your own doing. You did not plant a single tree. It was ALL given to you freely.

On what basis could you look at a fruit tree, for example, and decide, "That is MY tree"?

With your answer to that question in mind, read Genesis 4:1 and do some research into the meaning of the Hebrew word translated "gotten", and try to discern what was going on in the mind of Eve at that time.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2015 :  20:43:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Law 
 Frederic Bastiat 
 (1801-1850) 
 Source: Excerpted by Larry Fischer

 "… But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to 
 its proper functions… The law has gone further.. ; it has 
 acted in direct opposition of its own purpose… It has been 
 applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to 
 maintain… The law has placed the collective force at the 
 disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to 
 exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has 
 converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. 
 And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order 
 to punish defense… The law has been perverted by the 
 influence of two entirely different causes: … greed and 
 false philanthropy.

 "… It is evident.. that the proper purpose of law is to use 
 the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency 
 to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law 
 should protect property and punish plunder… But, generally, 
 the law is made by one man or one class of men… This fact, 
 combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of 
 man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains 
 the almost universal perversion of the law. [This is how ] law… 
 becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. [It become 
 understandable] why the law is used by the legislator to 
 destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, 
 their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by 
 oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done 
 for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in 
 proportion to the power that he holds…

 "… You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it 
 is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists 
 desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, 
 like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their 
 weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, 
 how can it be used against socialism?…

Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 08 Sep 2015 :  01:09:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Manuel,

I have spoken of what I call the 3 Levels of Consciousness found in Scripture. These are:

1) Lawlessness
2) Law
3) Love (specifically Agape)

Now, we have a choice. We can spend our efforts trying to "fix" the problems with living under the Law, which Bastiat describes. Or we can cease living under the Law by following the command of Christ to live under Love.

Everyone understands the first option. Thus, every election season the politicians promise to fix a list of problems, and the masses of Christians eagerly cling to their every word and argue over which politician will govern in closest alignments to God's law. These people have all chosen to remain under the Law, mostly because they are blissfully unaware that a higher state of existence is possible.

Bastiat's objections are true, and correct, and completely irrelevant to us here. Once we know what the New Covenant is, we will finally be able to see our way clearly to a life no longer lived under the confines of the Law. But, unlike James S.'s contention, this does not return us to a state of lawlessness. This too is a presumption that can only be made by one who is unaware of that higher state of existence that Christ called us to.

Now we come to one of the many obstacles in our way that prevent most Christians from even considering Christ's commands. So first, a question:
Who is more likely to have correctly understood the fullness of the teachings of Christ?
A) The Apostles, or
B) You and I?
If you answered "B", as the average Christian unthinkingly assumes and acts upon, then read no further. What I will say next will prove to be deeply offensive. I will not argue this point. I will simply make it. It is obvious on its face.

Here's the rub: Bastiat appears to have a significant objection to Socialism. Presumably you do as well, as you chose to chare this quote. But what is Socialism? Is this a fair definition or description of it:

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

What about this one:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
...
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Is there a difference between the two? Did the Apostles simply misunderstand Jesus? Or have we misunderstood? Is Bastiat not objecting to the very system that the Apostles implemented?

So, as you choke violently on this bitter pill, let us sum up by connecting this with the previous issue we discussed: the use of force.

Modern socialism is a product of the Law: It is enforced upon us by force.

What the Apostles practiced was a product of Love. It came from the heart. There was no use of force whatsoever. In fact, the most shocking story surrounding the Apostles' implementation of Jesus' instructions proves this very point:

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

In closing, I will just say that this merely gives us a glimpse into what the New Covenant actually is in practice. It does not yet adequately answer the question.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 12 Sep 2015 :  11:37:18  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb wrote: Posted - 13 Jul 2015.

For now it will suffice to say that the word "debt" and the concept of forgiveness of debt is an incredibly precise description of a particular commercial state and a potential remedy for that state.

This gets lost in the modern church who equate it with:
"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us", and

"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us."
Even though Matthew uses "debts" and Luke uses "trespasses", every Christian you will ever discuss this with will tell you that these are merely synonyms for "Sins". Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this flagrant lie, [sic] that ALL Christians believe with their whole heart, is probably the single greatest reason why none of them understand the New Covenant! They read a faithful translation of the exact words of Christ, and their mind immediately changes the plain meaning of the words into another meaning that Christ never intended.

Caleb (et. al.),
I previously asked for an explanation of the reasoning for your conclusions regarding debt, but in review I have another question. If, in fact as you say, that the term debt in Matthew 6 is speaking of an “incredibly precise description of a particular commercial state:”

1. How is it that we are asking for forgiveness of that commercial state (i.e. money ??) we owe God as we forgive others' commercial state to us?
2. What do we owe God for which forgiveness is being asked?

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (same Greek word) (Rom 4:3-4 KJV) Is this referring to “incredibly precise description of a particular commercial state:”?

Perhaps you can also explain the Greek usage in these passages (Matthew and Luke).

Greek for debt: opheilema {of-i'-lay-mah} Meaning: 1) that which is owed 1a) that which is justly or legally due, a debt 2) metaph. offence, sin


James Snyder

Edited by - jsnyder3395 on 12 Sep 2015 11:53:15
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 12 Sep 2015 :  12:38:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Debt in the broader sense can refer to any obligation. The definition of the original Greek shows that it does indeed apply in this wider sense.

However, the vast majority of obligations that we enter into are financial in nature, and we use the English word "debt" almost exclusively to refer to this specific class of obligations.

What Christians do, when reading their Bible, is pretend that Jesus' words apply only in some broad, nebulous sense. What you will never hear preached from the pulpit is that "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" applies specifically to financial obligations.

Our "debt" to God is eloquently stated by Paul in his letter to the Romans:
"Owe no many anything, but to love."

The New Covenant is a reality with NO debt. That is, without ANY obligations to others, except to act out of love.

To get there, we must start by using Jesus' instructions to eliminate ALL monetary debts, because this is a guaranteed formula for a world with "No debt". After that, we can then examine our remaining binding obligations, which are also debts, and figure out how to eliminate those as well.

But if we think we are ever going to address this issue, much less obey Jesus, while continuing to act commercially, entering into binding financial obligations (debts), we are truly fooling ourselves.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2015 :  07:31:28  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
You say: What you will never hear preached from the pulpit is that "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" applies specifically to financial obligations.

First, I know of several ministries that are based around teaching that debt is unscriptural.

You say: Our "debt" to God is eloquently stated by Paul in his letter to the Romans:"Owe no many anything, but to love."

"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." Mat 6:12 KJV)

Please clarify, debts in the first phrase is to be forgiven us by God, and is not the "commercial state" but in the second phrase it is the "commercial state," is that correct?



James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2015 :  07:56:12  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb:

You have ignored many scriptures in your discussion. I previously answered your statement with regard to Exodus 34: where you say: “…the fact that it contains commands NOT from Exodus 20 tips your whole theory over already.”

My view is that to come to the conclusion you penned, you must, again, ignore the text. The first thing that is said is “…and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” (Exo 34:1 KJV) So we know the specifics of what was written on the second set of tablets. The commandments in verses 14-26 that you mention are NOT on the tables of stone. Exodus 34 is NOT a rendition of the tables of stone. In addition, there is another covenant mentioned, this one unilateral. “I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation:” (Exo 34:10 KJV) This was not on the tables. Then God tells Moses, after listing all the commands you mentioned, “Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” (Exo 34:27 KJV) Here again is the separation between what God wrote and what He commanded Moses to write. We know that these things were not in the Ten Words. Note also that God says “after the tenor of (in accordance with) these words.” Not that this was a rendition of the entire covenant, or that the other covenant of miracles would be altered. To attempt to lump these together, which are clearly separate, with the second tables is just wrong. Therefore there is no “tipping over” of the “theory.”

Please acknowledge the truth or error of my statement above.

Perhaps I am in error, but it seems that you have concluded that socialism, rightly understood, is the New Covenant. This would lead to the “Utopian society” that would be called the kingdom of God. Am I off base here? How do you see the blood of Jesus and the forgiveness of sin fitting into this scenario?


James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 13 Sep 2015 :  09:40:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James:

Yes, I was also taught in church that debt is a bad thing. That is a start. However, these ministries you refer to do not go so far as to teach the necessity of doing away with ALL debts. This would require a radical restructuring of the economic order of a magnitude that no one is willing to even contemplate, much less apply personally.

It's time to cut to the chase. The truth is simple to understand:
1) In the beginning, God created a perfect world.
2) Man has been trying to improve on it ever since.
3) We know the result, and it is not good.
4) The goal is nothing more or less than a return to that state of perfection that God created in the beginning.

Questions:
1) Have I stated the goal correctly? If not, what is our goal?
2) How many commandments were there in the Garden of Eden?
3) Who invented money? God, or man?
4) Was there debt in the Garden of Eden?

There is really nothing else to discuss. All other arguments simply take us down unprofitable rabbit trails to nowhere.

But I do find it humorous that American Christians cannot be brought to admit that the Apostles adopted a completely socialistic economic structure. What it demonstrates is that no matter what the Bible actually says, people will only refer to it so long as it is useful for justifying the continuation of their life as it was, is now, and ever more shall be.

No one is interested in the type of radical change that Jesus described so forcefully and so often, and that rocked the boat so badly in his own day and age that they had to kill him for it.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 14 Sep 2015 :  12:12:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings Caleb, James and all,
Caleb, do you think/believe, that socialism
as we see today, around the hemisphere, is the
true Christian Doctrines?

Blessings,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 14 Sep 2015 :  13:27:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Socialism in theory is a reasonable description of what Acts 4 tells us that the Apostles implemented.

Socialism in practice is implemented by force of law, which is radically different to how the Apostles implemented it, and therefore to how we are to implement it in our own lives and churches.

There is a way to do this voluntarily. It is out-of-the-box ready, and can be accessed by anyone, in (almost) any country.

It "just so happens" that there is a church out there that claims "apostolic succession", which is a fancy way of saying that they take seriously the requirement of carrying on the same work started by Jesus and the Apostles. That they have done so should surprise no one.

The extent to which they have succeeded will blow your mind.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic   
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.75 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000