ECT Faulty covenant?

[Nang]

In the stream of what he is saying in Hebrews, I can't agree. I don't think he takes a step back. He is still providing stark contrasts between old and new in 13. So he meant the 'new' which was really in existence before the other.

If both the old and the new covenants manifest the divine purpose of the one Everlasting Covenant of Redemption, then there is no loss of distinction or "stepping back" (in same manner as dispies do!) to worry about.

The subject is one Truth. One eternal purpose and promise. Ultimately performed within creation for, by, and through Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:9-23; Romans 11:26-36

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

of the one Everlasting Covenant of Redemption,

Made up

 

[Nang]

"The covenant of redemption is intimately concerned with God’s eternal plan. It is called a “covenant” inasmuch as the plan involves two or more parties. This is not a covenant between God and humans. It is a covenant among the persons of the Godhead, specifically between the Father and the Son. God did not become triune at creation or at the Incarnation. His triunity is as eternal as His being. He is one in essence and three in person from all eternity.

The covenant of redemption is a corollary to the doctrine of the Trinity. Like the word trinity, the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions it. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is affirmed throughout Scripture. Likewise, the phrase “covenant of redemption” does not occur explicitly in Scripture but the concept is heralded throughout." R.C Sproul

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

"The covenant of redemption is intimately concerned with God’s eternal plan. It is called a “covenant” inasmuch as the plan involves two or more parties. This is not a covenant between God and humans. It is a covenant among the persons of the Godhead, specifically between the Father and the Son. God did not become triune at creation or at the Incarnation. His triunity is as eternal as His being. He is one in essence and three in person from all eternity.

The covenant of redemption is a corollary to the doctrine of the Trinity. Like the word trinity, the Bible nowhere explicitly mentions it. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible, but the concept of the Trinity is affirmed throughout Scripture. Likewise, the phrase “covenant of redemption” does not occur explicitly in Scripture but the concept is heralded throughout." R.C Sproul

I prefer Godhead to trinity.

 

[Danoh]

"It was the nation of Israel that both the old and new covenant were made to. " Again, the literalist bent makes Israel always to be the nation of Israel, that literal country at the time of Christ. The New Covenant was made with Israel, but not just the country called Israel and not with Old Covenant Israel. And Old Covenant Israel does not now exist as a people of God. Like the Greek ethnos, the Hebrew word goy,can mean peoples as well as nations.

It ONLY applied TO Israel's...BELIEVING...REMNANT.

 

[Interplanner]

If both the old and the new covenants manifest the divine purpose of the one Everlasting Covenant of Redemption, then there is no loss of distinction or "stepping back" (in same manner as dispies do!) to worry about.

The subject is one Truth. One eternal purpose and promise. Ultimately performed within creation for, by, and through Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:9-23; Romans 11:26-36

But only the old covenant gets called 'the weak and miserable elements of the world.', Gal 4, Col 2

 

[Nang]

But only the old covenant gets called 'the weak and miserable elements of the world.', Gal 4, Col 2

But why? Can you comprehend and explain this?

When the Law expresses the very will and word of God? When the Law is inspired, holy, and good, and reveals the Godly righteous moral standards to mankind?

What is the biblical answer to this?

Why has it been deemed weak, miserable and worldy?

 

[Interplanner]

But why? Can you comprehend and explain this?

When the Law expresses the very will and word of God? When the Law is inspired, holy, and good, and reveals the Godly righteous moral standards to mankind?

What is the biblical answer to this?

Why has it been deemed weak, miserable and worldy?

It's about the 'hedging around the Law.' the post-exilics (nehemiah, ezra, others later) saw the lesser dietary/ceremonial commands as protection against breaking the weightier. So they made many, many rules. Notice how Nehemiah immediately stops inter-racial marriage. The Pharisees have sometimes been called the broken nose sect because they would block their vision in the marketplace so as not to see women and get attracted, leading to crashing into posts and corners of buildings! Thanks to the 'hedge.'

2nd, it is the human factor trying to fulfill it. Details on that are found in Col 2--they have no power in restraining sensuality, he says about the neo-Judaism that also called christians 2nd rate. God had Christ come and fulfill the law (Rom 10:1-4), so that there is a great basis for fellowship that prevents favoritism and 'deadens' selfish desires. That's what makes the new covenant new--it is not a human party at this end; it is Christ (in arrangement with God at 'that' end), but Christ on our behalf, as our representative. A new man.

3rd, the same basic rules have been used around the world to try to obligate God to humans. See the comparative list in Lewis' "Illustrations of the Tao" in the back of ABOLITION OF MAN. All human religion has that thought of human obedience making God obligated to us, rather than Christ's work making us enjoy honoring him, which is empowering. The other is disappointing.

Hebrews captures yet another miserable feature: the sacrifice system was 'only an annual reminder of sins.' Incredibly enough, I have seen accounts of 'tabaski' (annual forgiveness ritual) from primitive Islamic cultures around Africa, where an animal is sacrificed to start the ritual, and the person starts out the day griping about the sins of everyone around them including ancestors. Talk about weak and miserable. The ritual is supposed to cure it, but the next day they are the same.

 

[Danoh]

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

That was difficult.

 

[Nang]

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

That was difficult.

The fault of the old Covenanent of Works is in the bolded above . . .

 

[Danoh]

The fault of the old Covenanent of Works is in the bolded above . . .

Yep :thumb:

Look at that - a MAD and a non MAD agreeing on something.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's about the 'hedging around the Law.' the post-exilics

Bible believers do not talk like this, commentary worshipers do.

 

[john w]

This Noahic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. Genesis 6:8

Sure it was...

"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, "

Another embarrassing Clavinist.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sure it was...

"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, "

Another embarrassing Clavinist.

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Notice how it never seems to matter to the apostles. Only the relation between old and new.

:chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

The fault of the old Covenanent of Works is in the bolded above . . .

Good reference!

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Good reference!

There is no such thing as an old covenant of works. There was a covenant made between God and Israel with blessings and cursings based on their obedience to the Law.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

But only the old covenant gets called 'the weak and miserable elements of the world.', Gal 4, Col 2

No, it doesn't. The Law does.
The old covenant contained the Law but is not synonymous with the Law.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Sure it was...

"Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, "

Another embarrassing Clavinist.

Yes sir, you're liable to hear just about anything in their SOF, saint john.

 

[andyc]

Puh-rayzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus!!!

Had you given a $666 "Love gift," just think of what the Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd would have bestowed on you, as the floodgates of Heaven would have overflowed!!!!! Give Gaaaaawd the guh-low-reeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Do I hear an "Ay-mehn?!!!Give the Laaaaaaawd a shout, saints!!!!!

Get a job, slacker.