ECT The New Covenant is obviously present tense

Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
If this isn't bad enough, now they think the other covenant (the good one!) of Gal 4 is not present-applicable either!
Click to expand...

What's bad is the fact that you just run and hide from what is written in these passages which proves that the new Covenant promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah remains in the future:

"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: 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: 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. 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" (Jer.31:31-34).​

In this passage we can see that the "fathers" of both the house of Israel and the house of Judah are the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Their "fathers" broke the LORD's covenant and it was the physical descendants of Jacob who did that.

So these verses are not referring to all of mankind, as you imagine, but instead are strictly in regard to the physical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Besides that there has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Jacob knew the LORD and had their sins forgiven. Therefore, the fulfillment of this prophecy remains in the future.

And anyone with spiritual insight knows that is a fact!
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
The fact that IP believes the New Covenant was BEFORE the Old Covenant speaks volumes about his spiritual insight.
Click to expand...

He is right on this one. What he interprets from it is what's off.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

It only appears the Old had preceded the New - only because the New was revealed after the Old.

Why the Old preceded the New's revealing?

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

But the New and all it will allow Israel preceded the Old.

Case in point.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
He is right on this one. What he interprets from it is what's off.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

It only appears the Old had preceded the New - only because the New was revealed after the Old.

Why the Old preceded the New's revealing?

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

But the New and all it will allow Israel preceded the Old.

Case in point.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Click to expand...

:jawdrop:


Jer 31

After those days, I WILL MAKE...
 
D

Danoh

New member
In God's mind, STP. Those passages I posted assert that.

ISRAEL'S things kept secret from the foundation of the world.

You're at times a bit TOO literal :chuckle:
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
STP:box:Danoh


Perhaps, but I'm talking about in real time.
The New does not precede the Old in Galatians.
Click to expand...

God's time IS real time - a thousand days as one, and so on.

And you know we differ on parts of Acts thru Revelation.

Built into the very Covenant that Moses called God on when He was about to anihilate Israel is said New Covenant's Grace.

Okay, you can cut and run now - much love, bro :chuckle:
 
Crucible

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
The claim by 2P2Ps is that 'even the simplest child can see that it is with Israel' but they (the 2P2Ps) never seem to notice that the new covenant is present tense. They keep talking of it in future tense, an event connected to the 2nd coming with a pile of others, as they imagine.

What is so hard about realizing that the new covenant that is present tense already--besides having universal appeal? IT EXPLODES THE FRAUD OF 2P2P!!!
Click to expand...

They are the inevitable consequence of Sola Scriptura- thousands of false sects making all sorts of bad interpretation.

That's why it's good to simply stay anchored to the Reformers who instituted Sola Scriptura in the first place- and who knew what they were talking about- rather than be involved with the theological anarchy of these folks :rolleyes:
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Crucible said:
They are the inevitable consequence of Sola Scriptura- thousands of false sects making all sorts of bad interpretation.

That's why it's good to simply stay anchored to the Reformers who instituted Sola Scriptura in the first place- and who knew what they were talking about- rather than be involved with the theological anarchy of these folks :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
Crucible

Crucible

BANNED
Banned
john w said:
Please say that again....None of us have ever been thrown for a loop, like you just did to us, having never heard that debate ender, stumper, before...Please?
Click to expand...

Here, I'll simplify it for you:

John Darby was wrong.



As far as I'm concerned, formidable theology started to die in the 1700's.

Your man is mid-1800's
And
You all are his followers.

Not impressed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top