National Covenant

[Randy Kluth]

Do you believe that God hates sin?

I do. But the explicit statement "God hates sin" is not found in Scripture.

So obviously that's just an assumption or opinion. And so it's possible that God actually loves sin.

I hope you aren't one of the dispensational desecrators who deny that the New Covenant becomes an immediate extant reality in every individual who accepts Christ.

Are you?

I consider it to be a self-evident truth that when I've accepted Him, and He has accepted me, then I immediately enter into a New Covenant relationship with Him.

If you don't believe that, then explain what you do or do not believe about His acceptance and its association with His New Covenant.

You're in denial about the meaning of "explicit." An explicit statement is not one that you argue logically--it is just plainly said. You may want to revise and reword your statement, leaving out the word "explicit?"

A covenant is an agreement between 2 or more parties. God made an agreement with Israel--a nation. My argument is that God did so, and therefore would not be inconsistent to do it again with many nations.

The New Covenant is represented as a singular agreement. And yet, in making a NT agreement with many nations it appears to be an agreement that can be repeated with many entities. That is my argument.

As much as I may agree with you that the New Covenant is a personal relationship with the Lord I cannot deny the meaning of the word "covenant" and how it has been applied biblically. The conclusion I drew is that God makes agreements with larger entities like nations without expecting that each individual will continue in a personal relationship with Himself. They may begin by affirming their loyalty to God in the covenant personally, but end without any clear relationship with God or obedience to His word.

 

[covenantee]

That is a non-answer if I ever saw one!

If you have disproving Scripture, please present it.

 

[covenantee]

You're in denial about the meaning of "explicit." An explicit statement is not one that you argue logically--it is just plainly said. You may want to revise and reword your statement, leaving out the word "explicit?"

A covenant is an agreement between 2 or more parties. God made an agreement with Israel--a nation. My argument is that God did so, and therefore would not be inconsistent to do it again with many nations.

The New Covenant is represented as a singular agreement. And yet, in making a NT agreement with many nations it appears to be an agreement that can be repeated with many entities. That is my argument.

As much as I may agree with you that the New Covenant is a personal relationship with the Lord I cannot deny the meaning of the word "covenant" and how it has been applied biblically. The conclusion I drew is that God makes agreements with larger entities like nations without expecting that each individual will continue in a personal relationship with Himself. They may begin by affirming their loyalty to God in the covenant personally, but end without any clear relationship with God or obedience to His word.

If the New Covenant is national, why did Jesus offer it to His disciples individually in Matthew 26:26-28?

 

[Randy Kluth]

If the New Covenant is national, why did Jesus offer it to His disciples individually in Matthew 26:26-28?

I believe the New Covenant is a very broad agreement given to many, but choosing only few. It offers Christian blessings, as well as eternal life, to both nations and individuals, knowing that not all in a nation will ever follow through and seal the deal.

 

[covenantee]

I believe the New Covenant is a very broad agreement given to many, but choosing only few. It offers Christian blessings, as well as eternal life, to both nations and individuals, knowing that not all in a nation will ever follow through and seal the deal.

Yes, Christ offers His New Covenant to every individual in every nation (Acts 10:35).

But according to the definition of covenant, it only becomes a covenant for those individuals who fear God and work righteousness and trust and believe in Him. (Acts 10:35;Ephesians 1:12-13))

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes, Christ offers His New Covenant to every individual in every nation (Acts 10:35).

But according to the definition of covenant, it only becomes a covenant for those individuals who fear God and work righteousness and trust and believe in Him. (Acts 10:35;Ephesians 1:12-13))

That would be "getting the cart before the horse." You make a covenant with a partner *before* they perform. And so, God made a covenant with *all Israel* before they had proven themselves faithful or unfaithful. It does *not* become a covenant *after the fact!*

The following verse does *not* mention a covenant that is made only with those God finds acceptable!

Acts 10.35 34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

The other passage you cited has complexities that need not be brought into this conversation. But neither does it state, explicitly, that God's covenant has to be made only with those who after the fact have proven themselves faithful.

Eph 1.13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Those who believe and who therefore receive the Spirit do not always prove themselves faithful. And it may be viewed as falling short of the redemption it is designed to confirm. Experiencing the Spirit alone does not guarantee Salvation, in my view.

Heb 6.4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

 

[covenantee]

You make a covenant with a partner *before* they perform.

No.

The terms and conditions of a covenant are set forth before the covenant comes into force and effect.

Those are clearly specified in Scripture. Ours are trust and believe.

Once we trust and believe, God fulfills His terms and conditions -- forgiveness, redemption, blessing, et al.

And the covenant is then in force and effect.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My statement reflected my way of describing your position. It was not intended as an insult. If physical Israel is no longer defined strictly as physical Israel, but is now also being defined as a "2nd Israel," then it is still what I call a "redefinition," like it or not. But I don't know why you wouldn't like it--it's precisely what you've been saying!

But, I'm not saying physical Israel is no longer physical Israel. I'm saying there is that Israel (physical Israel), which I am not redefining at all, and then there is also a separate spiritual Israel.

 

[Randy Kluth]

No.

The terms and conditions of a covenant are set forth before the covenant comes into force and effect.

Those are clearly specified in Scripture. Ours are trust and believe.

Once we trust and believe, God fulfills His terms and conditions -- forgiveness, redemption, blessing, et al.

And the covenant is then in force and effect.

Okay, we're at the end of the road on this. We agree to disagree, hopefully agreeably?

 

[Randy Kluth]

But, I'm not saying physical Israel is no longer physical Israel. I'm saying there is that Israel (physical Israel), which I am not redefining at all, and then there is also a separate spiritual Israel.

We're bickering over words now. We mean different things by the words we use. Each person uses his own words, as he means them--not as someone else wants them to mean.

As I understand it, you are redefining "Israel," which is a physical nation, as both a physical nation and a spiritual nation. Thus, "Israel," for me a physical nation, is being defined as a spiritual nation.

I understand that you don't use the same terminology in the same way. For you, "Israel" means two different things, one meaning a physical nation and the other being a spiritual entity. That's where we disagree.

I call your view "Replacement Theology," because of how I see your use of the term "Israel." Obviously, you are not replacing the physical nation with a spiritual nation, but only using the term "Israel" to describe a completely different entity not related to physical Israel.

I did my best, brother! ;) Don't mean you any harm--just trying to communicate using terms that express how I see the problem. Using the term "Israel," which refers to a physical entity, for both a physical entity and a spiritual entity is what is illegitimate in my mind.

 

[Keraz]

For you, "Israel" means two different things, one meaning a physical nation and the other being a spiritual entity. That's where we disagree.

But that is the truth of the matter.
There is a nation called Israel and there is a people; still scattered around the world, who are the Spiritual Israelites of God.
Note the different terminology - of Israelis; the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel, who are a people of mixed ethnicity. And the true Israelites of God, the Overcomers for Him. the Christian peoples. From every tribe, race, nation and language.
ALL can claim descent from Abraham, but that counts for nothing in God's eyes.

 

[covenantee]

Okay, we're at the end of the road on this. We agree to disagree, hopefully agreeably?

Of course.

 

[Randy Kluth]

But that is the truth of the matter.
There is a nation called Israel and there is a people; still scattered around the world, who are the Spiritual Israelites of God.
Note the different terminology - of Israelis; the citizens of the Jewish State of Israel, who are a people of mixed ethnicity. And the true Israelites of God, the Overcomers for Him. the Christian peoples. From every tribe, race, nation and language.
ALL can claim descent from Abraham, but that counts for nothing in God's eyes.

My purpose on these debatable matters is not to persuade you or anybody to change your mind on account of my arguments alone. The hope is that if anything in what I say is inspired, then it may help someone later on. If I'm wrong, hopefully I'll hear what God is saying through my brothers and sisters. Enjoy!

 

[Ronald D Milam]

I like what you say, except I'm not sure what you're implying. The Covenant of Moses and the Covenant of Christ both contained promises that God *must* keep. God keeps His word because He is omnipotent, and always does what He says He will do.

When God promised Abraham a nation in Canaan, He intended to keep that promise. The Law was a covenant that failed, and Israel was cursed. But God would still keep His promise, restoring Israel.

Galatians chapter 3 says the Law was just a schoolmaster until THE PROMISE came, so the Law is no more, and so far as I can see there are no such things as any Promises unto is via the Law. As a matter of fact Paul was scolding te Galatian because they were trying to be like the "Jews" in keeping the laws in ch. 3. Thus when he says there is neither Greek nor Jew, Male nor Female, hes nit saying that we are all Greeks/Jews combined and/or Males/Females combined, there are still males and females and Gentiles and Jews, what he was telling the Galatians is to STOP trying to keep the Law and be "Jewish like" to make it to heaven.

The Law was added because of sins, it was not needed else the original covenant with Abraham would have been under the Law.

 

[Truth7t7]

The fulfillment of God's Covenants.

In God's New Will and Testament, all covenants and promises are fulfilled only in Christ, and in those who are in Christ.

The OT covenants and promises are the promissory clauses of God's Old Will and Testament, and they are both revoked and fulfilled in the promissory clauses of His New Will and Testament, written in the Blood of His Son Jesus Christ, the Divine Testator, coming into full force and effect upon His death.

If you have made your own Will and Testament, you will see that the very first clause states the following or its equivalent:

"I HEREBY REVOKE all former Wills and other testamentary dispositions by me at any time therefore made and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament."

This means that all former wills and testaments, and all of their promissory clauses in their entirety, are completely null and void. In their place, the promissory clauses of the current last new will and testament are the only ones in force and effect. Any promissory clause which appeared in the old will and testament, but does not appear in the new will and testament, is irrevocably null and void unless yet another new will and testament is made which re-includes it.

Thus we see:

Hebrews 9
15 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.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Hebrews 8
13 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.

God`s New Will and Testament is everlasting:

Hebrews 13
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.

There is none greater.

We see other new promissory clauses of the New Will and Testament in:

Matthew 21:33-45
In this parable, the son, who is identified as the heir, typifies Christ.

Galatians 3:16
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.

2 Corinthians 1:20
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Hebrews 1:1,2
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

In them, we see that the Heir and Beneficiary is Christ alone, that all of the promises are affirmed and confirmed in Him, and that He is Heir of all things. All includes the OT land promises, the restoration promises, the blessings promises, and all else. There are no exceptions.

If you deny that God has appointed His Son heir of all things, you declare God to be a liar.

His New Will and Testament contains even better promises:

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Such as:

Hebrews 11
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

Additional promissory clauses in...:

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 3:29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

...declare that we who are in Christ are joint heirs with Him.

But notice:

There is no "national" New Testament.

And there are no promissory clauses for anyone, Jew or Gentile...

Who is not in Christ.

Amen!

 

[Truth7t7]

My purpose on these debatable matters is not to persuade you or anybody to change your mind on account of my arguments alone. The hope is that if anything in what I say is inspired, then it may help someone later on. If I'm wrong, hopefully I'll hear what God is saying through my brothers and sisters. Enjoy!

Your teaching is inspired by Randy, and your brothers and sisters are openly telling you there is no such thing that exist's as a "National Covenant" that you proclaim

The shed blood on Calvary is the only thing going between God and man "Period", salvation through the finished work on Calvary

Covenantee in post #11 hit the nail on the head, read it again and again, when Randy gets out of the way, maybe you can learn a few things

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[quietthinker]

Inter-National Covenant
......where all people are included. Too radical? Check out this podcast...
106 The Nature of Free Choice

 

[Randy Kluth]

Galatians chapter 3 says the Law was just a schoolmaster until THE PROMISE came, so the Law is no more, and so far as I can see there are no such things as any Promises unto is via the Law. As a matter of fact Paul was scolding te Galatian because they were trying to be like the "Jews" in keeping the laws in ch. 3. Thus when he says there is neither Greek nor Jew, Male nor Female, hes nit saying that we are all Greeks/Jews combined and/or Males/Females combined, there are still males and females and Gentiles and Jews, what he was telling the Galatians is to STOP trying to keep the Law and be "Jewish like" to make it to heaven.

The Law was added because of sins, it was not needed else the original covenant with Abraham would have been under the Law.

I couldn't agree more. The only thing I would add is that the Promises were given independent of the Law, and so must still be fulfilled. They were never intended to come through the Law. The Law was only meant to sustain Israel in a temporary form of righteousness until lasting righteousness could come through Christ.

Thanks for your thoughts, which I seem to fully agree with.

 

[Truth7t7]

I listen to brothers and sisters who have a right spirit. You don't. You have a critical, judgmental spirit.

Its my "Opinion" you disregard the truth posted by fellow Christians, if you did consider their postings as truth, you wouldn't be pushing this "National Covenant" garb on forums as you do

Covenantee has clearly shown you "Several Times" your claims aren't biblical, Post #11 is screaming the truth to Randy and the forum, as you "Continue" to push your teaching, after being shown the truth again and again, its "Pride" in my opinion

 

[Randy Kluth]

Its my "Opinion" you disregard the truth posted by fellow Christians, if you did consider their postings as truth, you wouldn't be pushing this "National Covenant" garb on forums as you do

Covenantee has clearly shown you "Several Times" your claims aren't biblical, Post #11 is screaming the truth to Randy and the forum, as you "Continue" to push your teaching, after being shown the truth again and again, its "Pride" in my opinion

I deleted that post to you because I didn't think it would be helpful, but you saw it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to listen to someone who is judgmental and not brotherly. Even then I will listen to someone in case God may be speaking through them. If I don't find God speaking to me through them on a particular issue, I just follow the Lord the best I know how.

It doesn't matter how many Christians take a stand on a particular issue. They could all be influenced by a single school of teaching that is based on an error. I have to listen to the Lord based on my own studies.

If you wish to argue something, it won't help to just try to pressure someone to agree with you by way of insult. It's always best to use your reasoning.

I've given very clear reasoning for my argument. You do nothing at all to disprove what I say. Therefore, nothing you say persuades me otherwise.

For example, I proved absolutely that God made a national covenant when He did so with Israel. You have nothing whatsoever to say about that, and yet you want me to bend to your wishes?