Eternal Security

[Episkopos]

Right!
But that's all. Man has NO PART in what God wanted to do in the New Covenant.
We only have to BE IN IT!
The Covenant is already established when we join it.

Plus, the question was really for @gadar perets because he said man does have a part in it.

Actually...it doesn't exist until a man actually walks in it. It is only potential before that. Unless a man walks in the power of Christ...just as Jesus did...the NC doesn't work. But it only takes one to make it real.

The NC is by faith. But so is moving mountains...by faith. Peter walked for a short time on water...but he did do it! He did walk in grace for that period. But the fact that the potential is there doesn't make faith easy. it goes against everything we know and have experienced.

So then the NC is really a fantastical and impossible formula of trusting that God is waiting for us to ask Him for the impossible.

The NC is based on the impossible.

Our faith is in the God of the impossible.

So then rather than do religious things...we need to have a completely new mind about life. The mind of Christ.

So then God is actually expecting MORE than He did in the OC. But that is because it is made available through Jesus coming down and joining us here to take on our humanity. Now anything Jesus can do...so can we.

 

[Helen]

Is this for me?

We all forgive you for the 4,000 mistake--I didn't think you meant the laws but had to bring it up so you could fix it.

BUT, you can't just reply that Jesus fulfilled everything.
We all know that.

What you have to do is prove that Stranger is right and I'm wrong.
You have to show WHICH covenant abolished the previous one.

If you CANNOT do this, you'll have to admit I'm right.

Yes, Helen, you have to do this because you're always saying I'm wrong and I stick to my belief. I believe I'm right and will always stick to my bielief and WILL SHOW YOU HOW.!!

You do the same....

We did this months ago...scripture for scripture.
And we both ended up right where we are now.
It is pointless doing it over ...
And I honestly don't have the natural strength or concentration with my head to be able to "get involved" all over again.

Be blessed it what you believe... xx

 

[GodsGrace]

We did this months ago...scripture for scripture.
And we both ended up right where we are now.
It is pointless doing it over ...
And I honestly don't have the natural strength or concentration with my head to be able to "get involved" all over again.

Be blessed it what you believe... xx

We NEVER went through the covenants,,,there is no scripture for scripture, although scripture is involved,,,,the covenants are studied outside of the bible.
You should study them sometime, at least 8 of the most important ones...it would greatly help to understand the entire Old and New Testaments.

So basically you're admitting that I'm right and that I have the difference between the old and new covenant stated correctly since doing so on your part would not be that difficult ... if you know it.

What we've been discussing all these months is obedience...
you seem to think it's not necessary and I believe the N.T. declares that it is.

We've never discussed the covenants. If you ever want to, I'm here.

 

[GodsGrace]

As I said in post#888; "Faith in Yeshua and being cleansed of sin by his blood is required to enter the New Covenant." It cannot function without Yeshua. It is his blood that is the blood of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28). Without faith in Yeshua and his shed blood to cleanse us, we cannot enter the NC. The promises made by YHWH in Jeremiah 31:33-34 come through faith in Yeshua.

Agreed.
But the Covenant is already set when we walk into it.
We had no part in creating it.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe every covenant can find its origin in (John 6:38) where Jesus said, "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." It was not the will of the Son, it was the will of the Father. The Son would be in agreement with the Father and would know what the Father expected and all the promises surrounding it. And these promises encouraged Christ while He was on the Cross. (Heb. 12:2) "...who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross...."

The New Covenant is but a part of the Abrahamic Covenant. It too pertains to Israel but we in the Church come into it under the blessings aspect. (Gen. 12:3) The only condition Abraham was under was in leaving his home to go to the land God had promised. The agreement between the two parties concerning the covenant would not come until much later while he was in the land. (Gen. 15:17-21) Abraham would take the covenant animals and cut them in half, and no doubt expected to pass between the parts with God showing they were in covenant together. But God didn't do that. He put Abraham to sleep, and God passed between the parts.

Abraham was not bound to fulfill anything in the Covenant. God had bound Himself to fulfill all.

Stranger

There was NO CONDITION set upon Abraham to do anything.
The Abrahamic Covenant was UNILATERAL.

God passed through the cut parts of the animals because ONLY GOD made the covenant and Abraham had nothing to do with it.

Also, First you said there was a condition on Abraham which was to leave his land...
THEN you said, in your last sentence, that Abraham was not bound to fulfill anything in the Abrahamic Covenant.

Your last sentence is the correct one.

P.S. I don't even know what you mean with the first paragraph so I'm leaving it alone unless you wish to explain it better. YAHWEH made all the Covenants, NOT YESHUA.

 

[GodsGrace]

Well, you asked for the simple 'basic' difference'. That was all you wanted. I knew explanation would need to come later but I was trying to be honest to your request.

Stranger

Whether simple or complicated, an explanation has to be correct.
You didn't even supply the "basic" difference.

 

[gadar perets]

Agreed..
But the Covenant is already set when we walk into it.
We had no part in creating it.

?? If that's the case, then Israel had no part in creating the Old Covenant. YHWH set/created the covenant and they agreed to enter it. Same as the New. YHWH set/created the New Covenant and we agree to enter it by receiving Yeshua. It doesn't matter who creates the covenant. All that matters is that both parties keep it.

 

[Nancy]

It could be understood like this:
God PROMISED to Himself that He would keep the Covenant...and OF COURSE He would! God does not lie.

But the Covenant was with man, although it did not require man's cooperation.
The Abrahamic Covenant is a uni-lateral covenant made by God WITH man but He was going to accomplish it WITH OR WITHOUT man's cooperation.

It's like this:
I decide, all by myself, that I'm going to mow my neighbor's lawn.
My neighbor has nothing to do with my decision, but HE benefits from my decision.
My decision INCLUDES him, but I'm going to do this anyway, whether or not he cooperates.

Good analogy. I just looked to see how many covenants God has made with man and, Lo and behold I find 7. God sure does like that number, lol.

 

[Enoch111]

YAHWEH made all the Covenants, NOT YESHUA.

Yeshua is Yahweh in the OT. Other than that you do have a proper understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Please note that in this verse (shown below) "word" should really have been capitalized, since Christ (the eternal Word) appeared to Abram and spoke to him:

After these things the Word of the LORD (YHWH) came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen 15:1)
Here Christ is the Word of YHWH, but at the same time He is God -- "I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward".

In the same day the LORD (YHWH) made a covenant with Abram, saying... (Gen 15:18)
Here YHWH made a covenant with Abram. So who was YHWH?

Scripture says: No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son [the Word], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)

Each time God appeared to men in the OT, it was the Word (Christ) who actually appeared, since God is "a Spirit", but Christ took angelic/human form as "the Angel of the LORD" or as "the Word of YHWH".

 

[gadar perets]

Yeshua is Yahweh in the OT. Other than that you do have a proper understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Please note that in this verse (shown below) "word" should really have been capitalized, since Christ (the eternal Word) appeared to Abram and spoke to him:

After these things the Word of the LORD (YHWH) came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen 15:1)
Here Christ is the Word of YHWH, but at the same time He is God -- "I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward".

In the same day the LORD (YHWH) made a covenant with Abram, saying... (Gen 15:18)
Here YHWH made a covenant with Abram. So who was YHWH?

Scripture says: No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son [the Word], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)

Each time God appeared to men in the OT, it was the Word (Christ) who actually appeared, since God is "a Spirit", but Christ took angelic/human form as "the Angel of the LORD" or as "the Word of YHWH".

One of the most effective ways to mislead the brethren is to read our own beliefs into the text. If Yeshua is YHWH, then he is his own father (Psalms 2:7).

 

[Jun2u]

Calvinism is not biblical. It does not teach the nature of God.
Anyone who can serve a God such as the one you believe in must certainly be reading scripture incorrectly.

Why do you keep bringing up Calvin to me. We had this conversation long ago that I am NOT familiar with Calvin’s work. The scripture references I quote does not come from Calvin but from the Bible.

I may be reading verses incorrectly but FYI, no one has a perfect understanding of the Bible either, only to what God has revealed.

Do you think it took J Calvin in 1,500 AD to figure out that God is an unloving and unjust God? No other theologian before Him saw this in scripture?!

I don’t understand your questions please clarify.

The context of Jesus' statement explains how God draws men and women to Himself. There is nothing mystical about it. The following verse in the context (John 6:45) reveals how God draws men unto Himself. "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Note the words "taught" and "every man" (all drawn the same way; by being taught) and "hear" and "learn" and "come". These are not mystical words. They are common, everyday words which are used to describe how it is that people are drawn to Christ.

So tell me, in John 6:45 when do you suppose the words, “taught,” “heard,” and “learned” began, before or after the drawing of God?

I believe Calvinism is blasphemous.

Only because his theology is different from yours? I believe in the acronym T-U-L-I-P but I can’t say I know the rest of his work. However, I do know the reformers, and only they were correct to teach it is “the faith of Jesus” and NOT “faith in Jesus.” The KJV and perhaps a few other Bibles has the only correct translation as well.

There are at least five or six scripture references that attests to this, but this is not the forum for it. I might post a thread under the Bible Study Forum titled “It is the faith of Jesus and NOT “the faith in Jesus.”

2 Thessalonians 2:14

There is no special, mystical anointing of the Holy Spirit, but rather, the Holy Spirit calls men through the gospel; and it is the gospel that is the power (Romans 1:16).

BTW, the call to the world is “believe in my Son, hear ye Him!”

But man, in and of himself will NEVER believe because he is dead in his sins and sold to Satan. A dead person has no life nor the power to believe. This is a fundamental principle.

To borrow your words: “There is no special, mystical anointing of the Holy Spirit, but rather, by the Holy Spirit calls men through the gospel, and it is the gospel that is the power.” Correct.

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God!”

To God Be The Glory

 

[GodsGrace]

?? If that's the case, then Israel had no part in creating the Old Covenant. YHWH set/created the covenant and they agreed to enter it. Same as the New. YHWH set/created the New Covenant and we agree to enter it by receiving Yeshua. It doesn't matter who creates the covenant. All that matters is that both parties keep it.

No.
The Mosaic was a bi-lateral covenant.
I will be your God and you will be my people,,,,
IF they kept His commandments.

 

[GodsGrace]

Good analogy. I just looked to see how many covenants God has made with man and, Lo and behold I find 7. God sure does like that number, lol.

There are more.
Try again...

 

[GodsGrace]

Yeshua is Yahweh in the OT. Other than that you do have a proper understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Please note that in this verse (shown below) "word" should really have been capitalized, since Christ (the eternal Word) appeared to Abram and spoke to him:

After these things the Word of the LORD (YHWH) came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen 15:1)
Here Christ is the Word of YHWH, but at the same time He is God -- "I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward".

In the same day the LORD (YHWH) made a covenant with Abram, saying... (Gen 15:18)
Here YHWH made a covenant with Abram. So who was YHWH?

Scripture says: No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son [the Word], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)

Each time God appeared to men in the OT, it was the Word (Christ) who actually appeared, since God is "a Spirit", but Christ took angelic/human form as "the Angel of the LORD" or as "the Word of YHWH".

Well, it's a good thing I have the proper understanding of the covenants!
As to God appearing as Jesus in the O.T. I agree that God was never seen in the OT.
But you have YHWH in parenthesis.
On phone .can't write.

 

[gadar perets]

No.
The Mosaic was a bi-lateral covenant.
I will be your God and you will be my people,,,,
IF they kept His commandments.

Of course it was bi-lateral. So is the New Covenant. YHWH will do x,y,z if the people will believe in His Son Yeshua. The moment they stop believing in Yeshua and renounce him is the moment they break the New Covenant and are lost forever.

 

[GodsGrace]

Of course it was bi-lateral. So is the New Covenant. YHWH will do x,y,z if the people will believe in His Son Yeshua. The moment they stop believing in Yeshua and renounce him is the moment they break the New Covenant and are lost forever.

OK GP
I can't continue to argue this.
I'm sure it's on the net.

 

[Nancy]

There are more.
Try again...

I only got the 7 "Specific" ones, from what I read they fall under one of these: conditional, unconditional, and general.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

One of the most effective ways to mislead the brethren is to read our own beliefs into the text. If Yeshua is YHWH, then he is his own father (Psalms 2:7).

You can't say they are two separate entities
Jesus said "My Father and I are one".
John 10:30;

 

[Nancy]

You can't say they are two separate entities
Jesus said "My Father and I are one".
John 10:30;

BINGO-was waiting for someone to say that I think our friend believes a bit differently than we do when it comes to who Christ truly is.

 

[gadar perets]

You can't say they are two separate entities
Jesus said "My Father and I are one".
John 10:30;

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
​

You misunderstand John 10:30 which is a oneness of purpose, not of being.