NEWSFLASH: Abraham was not a Jew. Neither was Isaac. Neither was Jacob.

[covenantee]

Just as I thought

Its amazing that everyone I know who does not believe God is not bound keep his promise to abrahams decendents (Israel) does not believe God is bound to keep his promise to us either.

God just says, i will do this.. But maybe not..

You'll never understand spiritual fulfillment, because it requires spiritual discernment.

There will be no small host in hell who thought they could live as they pleased because they were eternally secure.

If you think that the Scripture I've cited is wrong, tell the author of Hebrews and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.

 

[Zao is life]

Absolutely true. Galatians 3:16

But here's who EG says the inheritor is:
"to those who are blinded in part.. and the remnant. the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob"

For which there is not one whit of affirmative NT Scripture. From Galatians 3:16, the inheritors are Abraham and Christ.

Not "those who are blinded in part.. and the remnant. the children of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob".

Why aren't you arguing with him?

If you had the time and desire to, which I'm sure you don't (because I wouldn't have the desire to) you could go back in this thread and see how much I've argued with EG about it. I've told him many times the Jews who do not believe have been broken off from the Abrahamic Covenant, from Israel, and only IF a Jewish person repents and turns to faith in Christ will the person be grafted back in again. I've told him that Romans 11 does not speak about a future event but about something that has been ongoing since the Deliverer came out of Zion turning away ungodliness from Jacob in the day He took away their (and our) sins, and I've told EG that his exaltation of Jews who do not believe in Jesus over Gentiles, or Jews over Gentiles in general, is idolatrous. He responded by telling me he would report my post.

 

[Zao is life]

When Paul spoke of the new covenant and the one it replaced, he spoke of first and second not third or fourth etc. You also leave out the covenant with Noah in the count. The only count that matters if the first and second covenants, which are the old covenant/testament and the new covenant/testament ratified at the cross. The others only confuse the matter.

Only those two covenants had laws regarding sin sacrifice/forgiveness.

The above is false, brother ewqr. Notice how people always make false statements without backing them up with scripture, like you just did above?

The New Covenant that was promised in Jer.31:31-33 cites only the covenant of law (Mosaic Covenant) for replacement.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 states very clearly which covenant the new covenant is replacing, citing only the covenant God made with Israel in the day He took them out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, which is the covenant they broke.

Paul did not speak of the Abrahamic covenant as the covenant that the new covenant replaced, as you falsely claim. He spoke only of the new covenant replacing the covenant of law. He did not contradict himself:

Galatians 3:17-18
What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise. For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.

The covenant with Noah was long before Abraham. It's besides the point when talking about God's covenant with Abraham because God's covenant with Abraham involves the election of Abraham and his seed. That's where the elect nation started.

@covenantee Notice how in Hebrews when the author speaks about the death of the Testator, he is speaking about the covenant of law:

Hebrews 9
15 And so he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the eternal inheritance he has promised, since he died to set them free from the violations committed under the first covenant. 16 For where there is a will, the death of the one who made it must be proven. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it carries no force while the one who made it is alive. 18 So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every command to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded you to keep." 21 And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood. 22 Indeed according to the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Unlike the above, the author of Hebrews speaks about the covenant God made with Abraham in this manner:

Hebrews 6
13 Now when God made his promise to Abraham, since he could swear by no one greater, he swore by himself, 14 saying, "Surely I will bless you greatly and multiply your descendants abundantly." 15 And so by persevering, Abraham inherited the promise. 16 For people swear by something greater than themselves, and the oath serves as a confirmation to end all dispute. 17 In the same way God wanted to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of the promise that his purpose was unchangeable, and so he intervened with an oath, 18 so that we who have found refuge in him may find strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and steadfast, which reaches inside behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus our forerunner entered on our behalf, since he became a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.

Galatians 3:17-18
What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise. For if the inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise.

1. Abrahamic Covenant: Unconditional and eternal. Unsolicited by Abraham, and depends only upon God's faithfulness. Was made 430 years before the law - Galatians 3:17-18. It was sealed by God's oath - Hebrews 6:16-18.

2. Covenant of law. Conditional an temporary. Ratified with blood (the blood of an animal), and depended equally on the faithfulness of the people, who promised to obey, as it did upon God's faithfulness. Broken by Israel.

3. Davidic Covenant. Unconditional and eternal. Promising the eternity of David's royal family line. Depends only on God's faithfulness.

4. The New Covenant. Ratified by blood (the blood of Christ). Unconditional and eternal, and replaces the second covenant in this list (the covenant of law). Fulfills the promises contained in the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant. Faith in the Word of God like Abraham had is needed to inherit the blessings it contains. Jesus is the Word of God.

There are not only two Testaments (Covenants). The New Testament does not replace the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Davidic Covenant. It fulfills the promises contained in both, and the fulfillment of the promises are through Christ.

The only count that matters if the first and second covenants, which are the old covenant/testament and the new covenant/testament ratified at the cross. The others only confuse the matter. Only those two covenants had laws regarding sin sacrifice/forgiveness.

Really? Did the old covenant (the covenant of law which came 430 years later) elect Abraham and his seed? Your statement above nullifies God's promise to Abraham, and you're telling people that the whole counsel of God is unimportant - they can ignore most of scripture. Copy @covenantee for info​

 

[ewq1938]

There are not only two Testaments (Covenants). The New Testament does not replace the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Davidic Covenant. It fulfills the promises contained in both, and the fulfillment of the promises are through Christ.​

This entire post is a strawman fallacy.

 

[Zao is life]

This entire post is a strawman fallacy.

Nonsense. You aren't educated on the full Word of God regarding one of the most important subjects, which is the difference between the covenant of law and the covenant of promise which came 430 years earlier and elected Abraham and his seed forever, and want everyone else to be as ignorant about it by saying the only covenants which matter for people to understand how they relate to one another is the covenant of law and the new covenant.

The new covenant is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, and it's fulfilled by Jesus. The new covenant replaced only the Mosaic covenant of law, which came 430 years after the promise.

@ewqr The post you quoted was in response to my reponse to brother @covenantee where he said there are only two testaments/covenants.

 

[ewq1938]

Nonsense. You aren't educated on the full Word of God regarding one of the most important subjects, which is the difference between the covenant of law and the covenant of promise which came 430 years earlier and elected Abraham and his seed forever, and want everyone else to be as ignorant about it by saying the only covenants which matter for people to understand how they relate to one another is the covenant of law and the new covenant.

The new covenant is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, and it's fulfilled by Jesus. The new covenant replaced only the Mosaic covenant of law, which came 430 years after the promise.

@ewqr The post you quoted was in response to the post made by brother @covenantee where he said there are only two testaments/covenants.

Never write to two different people in the same post. Always make two separate posts. This is still a strawman post. When Paul spoke of two covenants, a first and a second, and old and a new he was speaking of the Covenant with Israel, and the one through Christ.

 

[Zao is life]

 

[Zao is life]

Never write to two different people in the same post. Always make two separate posts.

YOU quoted what I said in my post to @covenantee. My post that YOU quoted when you chirped your bit into the conversation was not addressed to you.

I didn't mind you chirping your bit into the conversation, but get your facts straight, please. And don't tell me not to post to two people in the same post. I copied @covenantee because the conversation that was going on between me and him is the conversation YOU joined in on.​

 

[Zao is life]

When Paul spoke of two covenants, a first and a second, and old and a new he was speaking of the Covenant with Israel, and the one through Christ.

@ewq1938 That's only when Paul was speaking about the covenant of law vs the new covenant. But there are not only two testaments|covenants, which was @covenantee 's argument, which is what I replied to when you chirped your bit into the conversation.

There are not only two covenants, and Paul mentioned the Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians 3:17, and in Hebrews (if Paul wrote Hebrews) as the covenant God confirmed by oath (Hebrews 6:13-20), before he even spoke about the covenant that became old by being replaced when Christ came and died for sin (Hebrews 9:15-22), which old covenant came 430 years after the covenant with Abraham and his seed that God confirmed by oath (Galatians 3:17).

Paul also made an indirect reference to the Abrahamic covenant in the opening statements of Romans 11 - because it is not the covenant of law that elected Abraham and his seed.

Your argument is the only straw man fallacy argument in this conversation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Leviticus 25
23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.

Do you think that Christ was dead during that time?

Go on man.

Did he give it to them or not? Was it his to give? all of the earth is Gods. He created it

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You'll never understand spiritual fulfillment, because it requires spiritual discernment.

Same could be said to you.

Where does this pride come from? It certainly does not come from God. It comes from your flesh

There will be no small host in hell who thought they could live as they pleased because they were eternally secure. If you think that the Scripture I've cited is wrong, tell the author of Hebrews and the Holy Spirit who inspired him.

There are going to be a HUGE list of people in hell because they thought they were righteous, and it was their good works that got them in.

Many will say in that day lord did we not do all thes works in your name. And Jesus will say depart from me, I NEVER KNEW YOU,, Oh and he also said they practiced sin.

You see a child of God can not practice sin because he has been born of God. Whoever practices sin has never seen or met God (1 John 3).

See how it fits. They never knew God and God never knew them, why? Because they were never saved

See here is the problem I think many do not understand

Before we were saved, we were like Israel walking through serpents and getting bitten, Dead, unless someone stepped in to rescue us. God stepped in and had moses put a serpent on a pole. And told them if they wanted to live, look. Many came ot the end of themselves and looked. Many refused to look in pride, refusing to admit they needed help. Or thinking they could do it themselves.. They died.

People seem to teach we in free will would go back to that place. Only go back with no hope. The author of Hebrews said if a person could fall away, they could never be renewed. This is a nutshell is why. If you go back you have no hope. Even if moses placed a serpent there. You would not look, because you lost faith in that serpent.

The same goes with another example I use, A person is in the middle of the ocean without a boat in a storm with 60 foot waves. God comes ot help them, Thy have a choice, Akko’s God to take them away to safety (rescue them) or continue to fight and try to save themselves. Of which they will fail and they will die if they do not come to the end of themselves and allow God to pull them out of the water.

Again, Those who scream free will say we may want to go back to that state. I would ask why anyone would want to go back there. Knowing what they were saved from? And of course, if they could go back. Again, there would be no coming back. Because they have lost faith and would not allow God to save them again..

as far as sin, ALL have sinned and fall short. Gods standard is perfection. He came to die, because we cannot meet that standard. We did not before we came to faith, we can not after we come to faith.

That is where repentance comes in, You have to become bankrupt. You have to come to the end of yourself. If you can not come to the point like the tax collector. Knowing you are unworthy and unable to help yourself. And cry out for Gods mercy, Knowing you will NEVER meet his demand.

Then I question if you ever repented in the first place. Are you not still trying to walks through the snake filled land on your own without looking up to the serpent?

They looked once, and were saved from what killed them.

They did not have to keep looking.

Thats grace.. otherwise, you’re under law. And you better be perfect..

 

[covenantee]

I would ask why anyone would want to go back there.

Ask Charles Templeton, acclaimed erstwhile evangelist with Billy Graham, author of "Farewell to God", why he went back there.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Ask Charles Templeton, acclaimed erstwhile evangelist with Billy Graham, author of "Farewell to God", why he went back there.

I know why he went back, I do not need to ask him

1 John 2: 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.


20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you[e] know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.


22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

He did not go back. He never left.

Nice try though

 

[covenantee]

I know why he went back, I do not need to ask him

1 John 2: 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.


20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you[e] know all things. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.


22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

He did not go back. He never left.

Nice try though

If he never left, then all of those saved under his ministry, that of an antichrist, must not in fact have been saved.

You're denying the legitimacy of his salvation experience.

Nice try indeed.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If he never left, then all of those saved under his ministry, that of an antichrist, must not in fact have been saved.

You're denying the legitimacy of his salvation experience.

Nice try indeed.

No

I am quoting scripture.

Someone who stated they were with us, but become a person who denies christ was never of us.

He could have led people to Christ, that does not mean he was ever saved.

 

[Timtofly]

I've told him that Romans 11 does not speak about a future event but about something that has been ongoing since the Deliverer came out of Zion turning away ungodliness from Jacob in the day He took away their (and our) sins,

This is misappropriation of God's Word.

Paul clearly said the Deliverer would come after the fulness of the Gentiles. You claim Paul meant before the day of Pentecost.

"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

Which Sion? The heavenly one. Not born as a baby in the womb of Mary. This is the Second Coming when Jesus restores Israel and takes away their sin. That is the punishment of Adam on all humanity. Not their unbelief.

Could Paul be talking about the time from 720BC when Israel was practically wiped out? Sure. But how then do you reconcile "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"? This is the church from the Cross until the Second Coming.

This is not negating the Cross nor the NT church which will end at the Second Coming. This is proclaiming a future promise to Israel. One that you seem to hijack and misappropriated for the church. That is replacement theology.

Perhaps you are trying to change Paul's point, and declare him in error? Do you think he is misappropriating the OT promise?

Within that quote Paul uses both Israel and Jacob. The return of Israel, as that return relates to Jacob. This is not about Gentiles grafted in. This is about a restoration where all of Israel is once again whole. Even more so than they ever were. This is also the removal of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. That was the goal of the Cross and the Lamb of God.

 

[covenantee]

No

I am quoting scripture.

Someone who stated they were with us, but become a person who denies christ was never of us.

He could have led people to Christ, that does not mean he was ever saved.

In "Farewell to God", Templeton states that he became a "born again Christian" in 1936 when he asked Christ to come into his heart. He states that at that moment he felt "a radiant, overwhelming, all-pervasive happiness" as he whispered over and over "Thank you Lord. Thank you."

You deny that Christ saved Charles Templeton.

That's all a Calvinite can do.

 

[Timtofly]

If he never left, then all of those saved under his ministry, that of an antichrist, must not in fact have been saved.

You're denying the legitimacy of his salvation experience.

Nice try indeed.

Since when is salvation based on listening to some human? Even Satan can quote Scripture. The Holy Spirit can use Scripture. Listening to human reasoning instead of the Holy Spirit gets one in trouble. Listening to the Holy Spirit instead of human reasoning leads to eternal life.

Saying they were "saved under his ministry" is human reasoning. A person is redeemed when they submit to the Holy Spirit, no matter who proclaims the Gospel.

That is like saying Nineveh was truly not converted nor repentant, because their reaction was based on Jonah, and not upon the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Jonah never wanted them to repent or convert. He wanted them all dead. Jonah exemplified an antichrist spirit.

 

[covenantee]

Since when is salvation based on listening to some human? Even Satan can quote Scripture. The Holy Spirit can use Scripture. Listening to human reasoning instead of the Holy Spirit gets one in trouble. Listening to the Holy Spirit instead of human reasoning leads to eternal life.

Saying they were "saved under his ministry" is human reasoning. A person is redeemed when they submit to the Holy Spirit, no matter who proclaims the Gospel.

That is like saying Nineveh was truly not converted nor repentant, because their reaction was based on Jonah, and not upon the conviction of the Holy Spirit. Jonah never wanted them to repent or convert. He wanted them all dead. Jonah exemplified an antichrist spirit.

Are you a human?

If so, your reasoning is human reasoning.

 

[Zao is life]

Paul clearly said the Deliverer would come after the fulness of the Gentiles.

Nope. Paul clearly meant that the fullness of the Gentiles would be coming in after the Deliverer came out of Zion and took away the Jews' sins and our sins.

The part that you never quoted:

For this is My covenant with them, when I have taken away their sins. -- Romans 11:27.

Indeed, a time is coming," says the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. -- Jeremiah 31:31

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. -- Matthew 26:28

For this is My covenant with them, when I have taken away their sins. -- Romans 11:27.

When Jesus took away the Jews' sins and our sins, that's when the fullness of the Gentiles began coming in.

A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. --Romans 11:25.