Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

    Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Do you not see that the execution/ making of the new covenant takes place in the days that immediately follow the time of Jacobs trouble, Jer 30:7?
    Of course not. New Covenant is not even mentioned.

    Comment


    • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

      Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
      *[[2Co 3:9]] KJV* For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

      The administration of the the first covenant was unto condemnation, because men were sinners that could not keep that covenant, thereby it is the ministration of death. But the administration of the new covenant WILL BE [not is] the ministration of righteousness because this new covenant of law (written on the hearts) will be the covenant that men will keep and not break. We are currently walking under the ministry of the spirit of grace and not under the law. We have liberty because we are not [yet] under the covenant of law. The old covenant of law brought death (and not liberty) because the penalty for not keeping the law was death. Likewise, the New Covenant of law will not be a covenant of death NOR WILL IT BE a covenant of liberty, because men will be keeping this new covenant WITHOUT SIN! The law of liberty is found only under the ministration of the spirit of grace. There is no liberty when one is under the law, whether it be the law of the old covenant or of the new. There is no liberty within the confines of the law. So, the ONLY way that there won't be any death under the new covenant of law written on men's hearts is because there will be NO SIN.

      *[[1Jn 1:8]] KJV* If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

      Blessings
      The PuP
      Completely wrong. The way of escape has been made. We've been given all things pertaining to life and godliness. We can go and sin no more. Not one verse says we must sin until we are glorified. If we sin it is because we choose to. Romans 8:13 plainly says that if the believer follows the flesh they will die, but if the kill the deeds of the body through the Spirit they will live. I have told you before and I will tell you again, you are misusing 1John 1:8. It does not mean we must sin. That false teaching contradicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ we have been baptized in and the divine nature we can participate in, if we so choose.

      Comment


      • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

        Originally posted by Noeb View Post
        Completely wrong. The way of escape has been made. We've been given all things pertaining to life and godliness. We can go and sin no more. Not one verse says we must sin until we are glorified. If we sin it is because we choose to. Romans 8:13 plainly says that if the believer follows the flesh they will die, but if the kill the deeds of the body through the Spirit they will live. I have told you before and I will tell you again, you are misusing 1John 1:8. It does not mean we must sin. That false teaching contradicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ we have been baptized in and the divine nature we can participate in, if we so choose.
        If you think that you can live without sin, this side of the return of Jesus, you are deceived. There is none righteous, no not one. Only Christ has been tempted in all points, and yet without sin. I see no further need of discussing this any further.

        The PuP

        Originally posted by Noeb View Post
        Completely wrong. The way of escape has been made. We've been given all things pertaining to life and godliness. We can go and sin no more. Not one verse says we must sin until we are glorified. If we sin it is because we choose to. Romans 8:13 plainly says that if the believer follows the flesh they will die, but if the kill the deeds of the body through the Spirit they will live. I have told you before and I will tell you again, you are misusing 1John 1:8. It does not mean we must sin. That false teaching contradicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ we have been baptized in and the divine nature we can participate in, if we so choose.
        If you think that you can live without sin, this side of the return of Jesus, you are deceived. There is none righteous, no not one. Only Christ has been tempted in all points, and yet without sin. I see no further need of discussing this any further.

        The PuP

        Comment


        • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

          Originally posted by Jean123
          I think it has already started long before because of the signs and everything.
          It sure started on the cross and ratified at Pentecost when the Holy Ghost first started to indwell the hearts and minds of the faithful.

          Comment


          • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

            Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
            If you think that you can live without sin, this side of the return of Jesus, you are deceived. There is none righteous, no not one. Only Christ has been tempted in all points, and yet without sin. I see no further need of discussing this any further.

            The PuP
            That we have to sin is denying the faith. There is none righteous is an OT quote establishing all have sinned, and has nothing to do with post rebirth and the power of God in a believer. You are deceived.

            Comment


            • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

              Originally posted by Walls View Post
              The point was, how is the word "administrator" used in connection with the what it administrated? This is why I asked for exegesis. You both just stated previous claims without a single bit of exegesis. But I will explain.

              First, we can all agree that according to the plain language, the Apostles are NOT said to be under the New Covenant. It says that God has made them able "ADMINISTRATORS" of it. That is, the Apostles exercised power over the Covenant, not the reverse. But if you insist that it so, let us see what absurdity it causes when we apply your understanding to the other "Administrators".
              • Verse 3. Are those who have been ministered too and converted over the Apostles? Or are there TWO entities, (i) the Apostles influencing (ii) the converts?
              • Verse 6 is the verse under scrutiny. I leave its conclusion to be set by the other verses.
              • Verse 7. The Law, engraven on stones "Administered" Death. Was the engraven Law under the authority of death. Or did it have influence over the other?
              • Verse 8. The "Administration" of the Spirit made converts. Is the Spirit subject to the converts? Or does the Spirit - One Thing, influence the other - converts?
              • Verse 9. Did the Administration of Law that causes death mean that the Law was under death? Or was the Law dictating death on sinners?
              • Verse 9. Did righteousness as an "administrator", subject itself or did it influence the state of those who it administrated?

              The answers are obvious. The "Administrator" was NEVER under the power of what it administrated. It dictated the terms. So verse 6 must be the same. The Apostles exercise power over the New Testament, not the other way around that you claim.

              I leave the text under discussion for your reference.

              3 "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
              4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
              5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
              6 Who 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.
              7 But 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:
              8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
              9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory."
              To say your exegesis is strange will be an understatement. But since I know how studious you are, I take it you really believe this view to be true. So I will, therefore, ask you a couple of simple questions.

              a. Do you believe that the New Covenant is directly linked with the remission of sins?
              b. Do you believe that Jesus Christ also died for the Apostles?

              Comment


              • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                Originally posted by randyk View Post
                I think you're on solid ground. Put another way, the testimony about God and His holiness under the Old Covenant precluded an eternal relationship between God and Man. The glory of God had to fade away from Man, no matter how saintly, because a holy God could not eternally remain with unsanctified Man.

                Under the Old Covenant Israel was only sanctified temporarily. They were forgiven only until they sinned again.

                And Man was, by nature, a regular sinner. We are, in fact, born in sin and have a sinful nature. So God cannot permanently remain with us this way, but can only offer a temporary cure until He establishes an eternal covenant with us.

                That eternal covenant was made with us at the cross. And this is where the New Covenant began. That's why Jesus offered up the wine at Passover as a representation of his blood on the cross. And that's why he offered his bread--as a representation of his bodily life--a life we can have intertwined eternally with our own.

                Our eternal life began at the cross and when we accepted his life. When we choose his life we reject our autonomy without him. We live in eternal union with him.

                This is the New Covenant. It began at the cross. And according to Bible Prophecy, it will manifest a national salvation in Israel when they are delivered from international persecution.

                That means the whole nation will come to embrace Christianity, just as many non-Jewish nations have in the past. The "first will be last." Israel was the 1st nation to hear the Gospel. But they will be the last nation to accept it.
                This is my understanding as well. Paul argued in Eph 2:11-16 that Gentiles who were once aliens and strangers separated from the Commonwealth of Israel have been made nigh to God by the death of Jesus. Also with his blood, Jesus removed the middle wall of partition that separated the Jew and Gentile, thus making them ONE, spiritually speaking. The implication is that Gentiles who were not mentioned by Jeremiah in his prophecy of the new covenant are now by faith, partakers of the covenants of promise v-12.

                Evidence abound throughout the NT as proof that the Apostles and every Jewish believer and the international Church are ALL under the New Covenant. The name of the second half of the Bible (New Testament/Covenant) itself, is sufficent for the discerning to understand that it is now operative. Yet, a handful of our brethren in their wisdom, claim it will come into place when Jesus returns.

                Comment


                • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                  Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                  *[[2Co 3:9]] KJV* For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

                  The administration of the the first covenant was unto condemnation, because men were sinners that could not keep that covenant, thereby it is the ministration of death. But the administration of the new covenant WILL BE [not is] the ministration of righteousness because this new covenant of law (written on the hearts) will be the covenant that men will keep and not break. We are currently walking under the ministry of the spirit of grace and not under the law. We have liberty because we are not [yet] under the covenant of law. The old covenant of law brought death (and not liberty) because the penalty for not keeping the law was death. Likewise, the New Covenant of law will not be a covenant of death NOR WILL IT BE a covenant of liberty, because men will be keeping this new covenant WITHOUT SIN! The law of liberty is found only under the ministration of the spirit of grace. There is no liberty when one is under the law, whether it be the law of the old covenant or of the new. There is no liberty within the confines of the law. So, the ONLY way that there won't be any death under the new covenant of law written on men's hearts is because there will be NO SIN.

                  *[[1Jn 1:8]] KJV* If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

                  Blessings
                  The PuP
                  Well, if the ministration of the new covenant is NOT yet in place, do you realise that we are then still ALL under sin and unsaved? Hope you realise that this is what your position implies? You see, what is sitting on your lap that you've remained blind to, is the fact that the New Covenant primarily is for the remission of sins (Heb 10:14-17), not the fulfilment of land promise as some of you have claimed.

                  Furthermore, if we are not under the Old covenant right now and the New according to you, is still in the future, are you telling your readers that we are in limbo right now? That is, with no current binding covenant between God and man?

                  Allow me to ask these:

                  1. Why is the second part of the Holy Bible called "THE NEW TESTAMENT"?
                  2. What do you understand by the New Testament?
                  3. Why is it called so if the New Covenant is still some way off in the future?
                  4. I do hope you realise that by definition, 'testament' and 'covenant' are synonymous, so the New Testament can also pass for New Covenant?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                    Originally posted by Noeb View Post
                    The following didn't apply to the apostles? "Christ's gospel" "in them that are saved" " savour of his knowledge" "savour of life" "speak we in Christ"

                    That they ministered what they had not lived and experienced and were living and experiencing is absurd. It plainly says "we all", not just you converts. It says "we have such hope" not just you converts. It says "we have this ministry, as we have received mercy". The plain language places the apostles as participants of the NC they ministered to others.
                    Noeb, you can only present the TRUTH as stated in scripture and leave it for those with discernment to understand. After you've done that; as Sir Thomas More (1478 - 1535) once told Henry VIII (1491 - 1547), you can do no more! It is the Spirit of God that convicts man of his folly, not you or anyone for that matter.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                      Few questions for the New Covenant is Now Crowd, Please provide references when and where applicable.


                      1. Where is the Ark of the New Covenant?


                      2. Is it possible to Break the New Covenant? If so How?


                      3. What is the Penalty for Breaking the New Covenant?


                      4. Why is the Nation of Israel Currently Excluded from the New Covenant?


                      5. Do you believe that Jews today would agree that the New Covenant excludes any provision for the land?


                      6. At any point do you believe Jeremiah 31:34 was fulfilled and How?[/QUOTE]

                      Comment


                      • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                        Well, if the ministration of the new covenant is NOT yet in place, do you realise that we are then still ALL under sin and unsaved? Hope you realise that this is what your position implies? You see, what is sitting on your lap that you've remained blind to, is the fact that the New Covenant primarily is for the remission of sins (Heb 10:14-17), not the fulfilment of land promise as some of you have claimed.

                        Furthermore, if we are not under the Old covenant right now and the New according to you, is still in the future, are you telling your readers that we are in limbo right now? That is, with no current binding covenant between God and man?

                        Allow me to ask these:

                        1. Why is the second part of the Holy Bible called "THE NEW TESTAMENT"?
                        2. What do you understand by the New Testament?
                        3. Why is it called so if the New Covenant is still some way off in the future?
                        4. I do hope you realise that by definition, 'testament' and 'covenant' are synonymous, so the New Testament can also pass for New Covenant?
                        I am not going to answer your questions for one simple reason. It is because you cannot differentiate the role of high priest from the mediator of the new covenant.

                        *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

                        The role of the high priesthood of Jesus is exemplified in John 17. One only has to look at the ceremonial law to see that the exclusive role of the high priest was to intercede for the whole nation, saints & sinners alike. And (for that you have yet to see) Jesus ' role as the mediator is for those who enter the promised kingdom of God.

                        *[[1Co 6:9]] KJV* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

                        The PuP

                        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                        Well, if the ministration of the new covenant is NOT yet in place, do you realise that we are then still ALL under sin and unsaved? Hope you realise that this is what your position implies? You see, what is sitting on your lap that you've remained blind to, is the fact that the New Covenant primarily is for the remission of sins (Heb 10:14-17), not the fulfilment of land promise as some of you have claimed.

                        Furthermore, if we are not under the Old covenant right now and the New according to you, is still in the future, are you telling your readers that we are in limbo right now? That is, with no current binding covenant between God and man?

                        Allow me to ask these:

                        1. Why is the second part of the Holy Bible called "THE NEW TESTAMENT"?
                        2. What do you understand by the New Testament?
                        3. Why is it called so if the New Covenant is still some way off in the future?
                        4. I do hope you realise that by definition, 'testament' and 'covenant' are synonymous, so the New Testament can also pass for New Covenant?
                        I am not going to answer your questions for one simple reason. It is because you cannot differentiate the role of high priest from the mediator of the new covenant.

                        *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

                        The role of the high priesthood of Jesus is exemplified in John 17. One only has to look at the ceremonial law to see that the exclusive role of the high priest was to intercede for the whole nation, saints & sinners alike. And (for that you have yet to see) Jesus ' role as the mediator is for those who enter the promised kingdom of God.

                        *[[1Co 6:9]] KJV* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

                        The PuP

                        Comment


                        • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                          The mediatorial ministry of Christ over the New Covenant is really very simple.

                          *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, THEY WHICH ARE CALLED might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

                          Very few would argue against atoning death of Christ for the sins of the whole world. If Trivalee and Co. can show that "they which are called" means the whole world, then they will have taken a huge leap for mankind. But, on the contrary, if they can't show them to be representing the whole world, the debate should be over, and concessions made.

                          Blessings
                          The PuP

                          The mediatorial ministry of Christ over the New Covenant is really very simple.

                          *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, THEY WHICH ARE CALLED might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

                          Very few would argue against atoning death of Christ for the sins of the whole world. If Trivalee and Co. can show that "they which are called" means the whole world, then they will have taken a huge leap for mankind. But, on the contrary, if they can't show them to be representing the whole world, the debate should be over, and concessions made.

                          Blessings
                          The PuP

                          Comment


                          • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                            Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                            I am not going to answer your questions for one simple reason. It is because you cannot differentiate the role of high priest from the mediator of the new covenant.

                            *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

                            The role of the high priesthood of Jesus is exemplified in John 17. One only has to look at the ceremonial law to see that the exclusive role of the high priest was to intercede for the whole nation, saints & sinners alike. And (for that you have yet to see) Jesus ' role as the mediator is for those who enter the promised kingdom of God.

                            *[[1Co 6:9]] KJV* Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

                            The PuP


                            It is indeed regrettable that you failed to recognise that in context, the mediator of the NC is synonymous with Jesus being the High Priest. By definition, a priest is a mediator between and a deity who in this case, is our Sovereign God. For example, pagans also have priests that mediate between man and deity (pagan gods). They claim to hear from their pagan gods and relate omens, etc to man. My point here is that priesthood and mediation are interlinked and inseparable. Mediation is a service conducted by a priest.

                            1. In the Old Testament, the Levitical Priests did service (sacrifices, etc) to God. IOW, they were the link between our holy God and sinful Israel. If you don't recognise their services as "that of a mediator" then you are too far away for my help.

                            2. The Book of Hebrews says that by reason of death, there was a need for a continuous replacement of the priests required for the unending sacrifices.

                            3. Thus, Jesus now having an endless life has now replaced the Levitical priests (Heb 7:11-13) and thus became our "mediator" to God the Father.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                              Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                              The mediatorial ministry of Christ over the New Covenant is really very simple.

                              *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, THEY WHICH ARE CALLED might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

                              Very few would argue against atoning death of Christ for the sins of the whole world. If Trivalee and Co. can show that "they which are called" means the whole world, then they will have taken a huge leap for mankind. But, on the contrary, if they can't show them to be representing the whole world, the debate should be over, and concessions made.

                              Blessings
                              The PuP
                              My beloved brother, PuP, those "who are called" refer to those who believe (Jew and Gentile), not exclusively Israel and Judah as you think. See below:

                              Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
                              Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

                                Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                                My beloved brother, PuP, those "who are called" refer to those who believe (Jew and Gentile), not exclusively Israel and Judah as you think. See below:

                                Rom 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
                                Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
                                So, you agree that eternal inheritance is NOT referring to salvation?

                                Blessings
                                The PuP

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X