The Four Stages of Mankind's Redemption:

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm done with your foolishness. I have much better things to do than deal with a whiny little child who has no idea how to debate and doesn't understand that spiritual discernment has nothing to do with spiritualizing scripture, but rather being able to discern what is literal and what is not.

That is simply a lame excuse on you rpart to retranslate Scriptures that are written literally to com eup wiht a "spiritual meaning". It is really easy to know what should be taken literally and what not.

It is called the golden rule of bible interpretation.

Rule 3: The Golden Rule of Interpretation​

III. The third rule of interpretation is as follows:

WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.​

A. Seek the plain, literal meaning of the Scriptures

1. The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.
2. The following is an analysis of the adjectives "primary," "ordinary," and "usual."
3. "Primary" emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term.
4. "Ordinary" and "usual" are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, "usual" being employed for the sake of emphasis.
5. "Literal" is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally as expressing the exact thought of the author at the time when it was used; and one is not to go beyond the literal meaning of the Scriptures unless the facts of the context indicate a deeper, hidden or symbolic meaning.​

B. Seek the figurative meaning only when the facts
demand such an interpretation

1. Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice versa.​

C. Study every statement of the Scriptures in context
("A TEXT APART FROM ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT")

Then study the facts of the context in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths. No prophecy of scripture is of private (special) interpretation (II Peter 1:20); The sum of thy word is truth (Psalm 119:160).

From Dr. David Cooper.

When people reject this, then passages that make sense in the literal, they say there is a different interpretation and you get all the cults and the cult wannabes in Christianity who claim special insight to know what should be taken literal or not.

God wants all His Children to know His Word and it does not require all this special garbage you push to know what it being taught by god.

But I do not wish you success in your attempts to teach people. You will lead them on a wrong path.
​

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

YOu already did. YOu told us here that What was writtenn in Jer. 31 is not what was meant and that we have to find the spiritual meanings of th ebible. YOu showed that there is otrher definitions other than what is written.

No my brother it is you who are lying about what you have written on this thread.

I don't say that is plain text, though, and you are saying that I say the plain text that Paul wrote needs to be reinterpreted. No, I do not say that. You are the one who says that is plain text in Jeremiah 31, not me. But, the explanation of what it means is written plainly in Hebrews 8 to 10 and you don't accept what is written plainly in those scriptures. So, you ARE a liar because what you said about me was a lie.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You're the one saying that as you're equating orthodox Christianity with Romanism.

Heretical according to you? Are you a closet papist?

The Lollards were led by John Wycliffe. Any idea who he was?

Well you said orthodox Christinaity for over 1700 years! NOt me. And for a millenium or more. the only sect of Christendom that had any sway was Romanism. If you wish to exclude the dark ages, You only now have a few centuries to deal with.

But I am still waiting for you to show me any orthodox Christian from those 1700 years you said that can point to a time when the terms of the New Covenant were completely fulfilled as you declared they were.

Hebrews 8:7-13

King James Version

​

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
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.

Also can you please show where Gentiles or the church is mentioned in this Covenant?

Also can you explain how the church has this covenant when the Apostle Paul said this about the Covenants God made:

Romans 9

King James Version

​

9 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is simply a lame excuse on you rpart to retranslate Scriptures that are written literally to com eup wiht a "spiritual meaning". It is really easy to know what should be taken literally and what not.

LOL. If it's so easy, then why do you misinterpret so much scripture? Why do you not take the explanation of what the new covenant is all about in Hebrews 8 to 10 literally? When a verse says that the new covenant WAS ESTABLISHED by the blood of Christ, you don't accept that because it doesn't line up with your false doctrine.

It is called the golden rule of bible interpretation.

No, it's called made up man-made nonsensical rules of Bible interpretation. That supposed golden rule of Bible interpretation cannot be found within the Bible itself.

Rule 3: The Golden Rule of Interpretation​

III. The third rule of interpretation is as follows:

​

WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.​

Who came up with this nonsense? You can't find it in the Bible itself. Who decides when the scripture is plain or not? You? Someone else? We all have to decide that for ourselves.

A. Seek the plain, literal meaning of the Scriptures​

1. The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.
2. The following is an analysis of the adjectives "primary," "ordinary," and "usual."
3. "Primary" emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term.
4. "Ordinary" and "usual" are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, "usual" being employed for the sake of emphasis.
5. "Literal" is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally as expressing the exact thought of the author at the time when it was used; and one is not to go beyond the literal meaning of the Scriptures unless the facts of the context indicate a deeper, hidden or symbolic meaning.​

B. Seek the figurative meaning only when the facts
demand such an interpretation​

Who decides if a scripture is plain and literal or not? You? No. You don't decide that for me. Anyone else? No. We all decide that for ourselves.

1. Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice versa.​

C. Study every statement of the Scriptures in context
("A TEXT APART FROM ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT")​

Then study the facts of the context in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths. No prophecy of scripture is of private (special) interpretation (II Peter 1:20); The sum of thy word is truth (Psalm 119:160).

From Dr. David Cooper.

When people reject this, then passages that make sense in the literal, they say there is a different interpretation and you get all the cults and the cult wannabes in Christianity who claim special insight to know what should be taken literal or not.

God wants all His Children to know His Word and it does not require all this special garbage you push to know what it being taught by god.

But I do not wish you success in your attempts to teach people. You will lead them on a wrong path.
​

I don't need to go by foolish man-made rules of how to interpret the Bible as if you or anyone else should decide for me which text is literal and which is not. Those rules are meaningless because there's no one person or group who can decide for everyone else what is plain and literal and what is not.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

LOL. If it's so easy, then why do you misinterpret so much scripture? Why do you not take the explanation of what the new covenant is all about in Hebrews 8 to 10 literally? When a verse says that the new covenant WAS ESTABLISHED by the blood of Christ, you don't accept that because it doesn't line up with your false doctrine.


No, it's called made up man-made nonsensical rules of Bible interpretation. That supposed golden rule of Bible interpretation cannot be found within the Bible itself.


Who came up with this nonsense? You can't find it in the Bible itself. Who decides when the scripture is plain or not? You? Someone else? We all have to decide that for ourselves.


Who decides if a scripture is plain and literal or not? You? No. You don't decide that for me. Anyone else? No. We all decide that for ourselves.


I don't need to go by foolish man-made rules of how to interpret the Bible as if you or anyone else should decide for me which text is literal and which is not. Those rules are meaningless because there's no one person or group who can decide for everyone else what is plain and literal and what is not.

I pity you and now put you on ignore.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I pity you and now put you on ignore.

This is what people do when they have no answers. I pity you that you are not willing to repent of your lies. You have major issues. You deny that the new covenant is currently in effect, despite the fact that it is the only means by which someone can be saved because it's the new covenant of Christ's blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sins. And, you apparently do not believe repentance is necessary because you will not repent of your lies.

 

[covenantee]

Well you said orthodox Christinaity for over 1700 years! NOt me. And for a millenium or more. the only sect of Christendom that had any sway was Romanism.

Tell God that the Lollards, Hugenots, Hussites, et al who stayed true to Him had no sway.

Tell us what He tells you.

But I am still waiting

You'll be waiting until you decide to understand past and present verb tenses.

In other words, forever.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Tell God that the Lollards, Hugenots, Hussites, et al who stayed true to Him had no sway.

Tell us what He tells you.

You'll be waiting until you decide to understand past and present verb tenses.

In other words, forever.

Still waiting for you to show from your 1700 years of orthodoxy any one who could point to a time when these terms of the New Covenant were completely fulilled:

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Just show me when these were completely fulfilled and no longer need to be performed for they are (as you decreed) completely fulfilled!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Tell God that the Lollards, Hugenots, Hussites, et al who stayed true to Him had no sway.

Hugenots came to be after the Protestant reformation. They held to Calvinistic Protestantism in just southern France for the most part until the 17 Century. While they held the correct view of soteriology- they came after teh Protestant reformation so are not part of your 1700 years, unless you wish to include all other protestant sects which were born

As for the Lollards who has great sway in the late 14th Century, yes they had many anticatholic stances (found in their 12 conclusions) and many sound biblical tenets. Their biggest problem is they had no central core of beliefs and had many ideas both biblical and nonbiob;ical; on the same issue as acceptable in their movement.

AS for the Hussites in teh Bohemian EMpire. Yes they were proto-protestants, but they held to transubstantiation, forming "religious armies", formal; public punishment for serious sins et al. This would be the any group that came close to orthodoxy during the dark ages of the roman reign.

But none of them have nay writings supporting your belief the New Covenant has been completely fuflilled.

 

[covenantee]

Huguenots came to be after the Protestant reformation.

Typical dispen disinfo. They came to be a century before the end of the Reformation.

"The term, which may be derived from the name of a Swiss political leader, the Genevan burgomaster Besançon Hugues (1491–1532), was in common use by the mid-16th century." Huguenots - Wikipedia

The Reformation ended circa the mid-17th century.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Typical dispen disinfo. They came to be a century before the end of the Reformation.

"The term, which may be derived from the name of a Swiss political leader, the Genevan burgomaster Besançon Hugues (1491–1532), was in common use by the mid-16th century." Huguenots - Wikipedia

The Reformation ended circa the mid-17th century.

And that was after teh reformation started not before. sorry if I gave a different impression.

Still waiting for you to show one of your 1700 years of orthodox scholars who point to any of the terms of the New Covenant and say,"This is when this was completely fuflilled:.

You can keep pointing out all my mistakes, but I will keep asking for your empirical proof from your scholars to show when in history the new covenant was completely fulfilled as you have decreed ex-cathedra!

Hebrews 8:8-13

King James Version

​

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
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.

 

[covenantee]

Still waiting for you to show one of your 1700 years of orthodox scholars who point to any of the terms of the New Covenant and say,"This is when this was completely fuflilled:.

Still waiting for you to show any other example of a mutilated dangling semi-covenant that doesn't understand past and present verb tenses.

 

[shepherdsword]

It's a common trait of the natural man. He has to dissect and compartmentalize spiritual truth in a way the natural mind can understand it. It's why we have so many books, methods, formulas and rituals to attempt to accomplish in the flesh, what can only be done in the spirit. "a Onena...a Twowa a threeya......turna ona the bubble machina" Lawrence Welk

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Still waiting for you to show any other example of a mutilated dangling semi-covenant that doesn't understand past and present verb tenses.

You first as you maded the declaration first. And I have no clue what you mean by a dangling mutilate semi-covenant. that is your words not mine.

 

[covenantee]

You first as you maded the declaration first. And I have no clue what you mean by a dangling mutilate semi-covenant. that is your words not mine.

Yes, they are. If you can't understand them, just leave them for those who can.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, they are. If you can't understand them, just leave them for those who can.

Well as that ridiculous term of yours is not found on the internet, it is your man made piece of gibberish, Either define it let it go.

You say yes they are. Who are you talking abo0ut here?

 

[covenantee]

Well as that ridiculous term of yours is not found on the internet, it is your man made piece of gibberish, Either define it let it go.

You say yes they are. Who are you talking abo0ut here?

Yes, it's on this forum which is not found on the internet.

Keep those gems coming.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Yes, it's on this forum which is not found on the internet.

Keep those gems coming.

Still waiting for you to show those scholars over the 1700 years!

Funny I have to go on the internet to get to this forum. But as it is a nonsensical imaginative made up term, it means nothing.

 

[covenantee]

Still waiting for you to show those scholars over the 1700 years!

Funny I have to go on the internet to get to this forum. But as it is a nonsensical imaginative made up term, it means nothing.

They're a series of adjectives modifying a noun, every one of which can be found in a lexicon.

Too much for you to comprehend.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

They're a series of adjectives modifying a noun, every one of which can be found in a lexicon.

Too much for you to comprehend.

Yes I do not do well with nonsensical
made up phrases. You 'd be amazed at how much I comprehend when it is formatted in an understandable way!

Still waiting for you to show from your 1700 years of orthodox scholarship. You have grossly failed to do so now.

Yes, they are. If you can't understand them, just leave them for those who can.

I guess that would be you! I know no MUTILATE, DANGLING, SEMI COVENANT- AS YOU MADE UP.

But I would prefer you quote some of your 1700 years of orthodox scholars that the New Covenant is completely fulfilled!

If it was completely fuflilled by Jesus. Then how can you be part of it as it was fulfilled nearly 2000 years ago.