"6 O YE SEED of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. 7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered **HIS** covenant FOR EVER, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an EVERLASTING covenant:" Psalm 105.
"And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all"
Can someone please tell me how one can "break" an unconditional covenant? I would like to know how that is done.
The only covenant that Israel "broke" was the Mosaic covenant, which was a temporary addendum to the Abrahamic covenant, and conditional. Ga 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added (to the Abrahamic covenant) because of transgressions, TILL the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
The "breaking" of the Mosaic covenant did not abrogate the Abrahamic covenant, or the land covenat,or the Davidic, or the New. Haven't you read (Duet 28-30) that the dwelling in the land granted to Israel by the Abrahamic covenant depended on them observing the laws of the Mosaic covenant till the SEED shold come who would bring the Mosaic covenant to an end and replacing it with something far better. Isreal did not accept the better one (read Rom 9-11 here) and held on to the old one and God chastened them by the dispersion into the nations.
Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
The men who are here denying the everlasting covenants that God has sworn to with an oath are promoting the Satanic kingdom and is opposing the kingdom of God and his Christ.
They have believed none of the words that God has used in his covenants to Abraham, David, or Jesus Christ as they relate to the everlasting perpetuation of this people he has created as his very own and through whom he has and will bless the whole world.
The covenants are more important than his own name and he will keep them and if someone tries to supplant them with a so-called covenant of works and a so-called covenant of grace that the Scriptures knows nothing about, it is because of an attitude like the Scribes and the Pharisees who did not and would not accept his rule in their hearts. They, however, do not have the option of pleading ignorance because we now have the completed words of God which instructs us when, how, and why he is establish his earthly rule on the throne of David, which was never in heaven. The idea is absurd!
MurrayA wrote:Of the options given, the second is the correct one.The Old covenant was breakable, and was in fact broken (Jer.31:32), The New covenant is "not like" that Old covenant.
1 The Abrahmic Covenant is perpetual.2 Being called “NEW” in these verses does not imply contrary to the first. God is never inconsistent with Himself.3 God had not changed His purpose, thus the first covenant was inviolable.4 The Law was a confirmation of the Abramic Covenant and was dependant upon it.5 Thus God could not have made a contrary covenant.6 We derive our salvation from the seed promised to Abraham, and by faith we are his children.7 God has not made another covenant than that which He made with Abraham, confirmed by Moses.8 “New” is the “Form” of the covenant, thus Christ, and the grace of the Holy Spirit.(Regenerated). This form includes the external way of teaching, God now speaks to us openly whereas before (Moses) He spoke through the veil. But the doctrine remains the same.9 The Gospel brings nothing but what the Law contains. It is not only a doctrine of the letter, but also efficacious in ear and in heart.(Taken From Calvin on Jer 31:31/32)
There is only ONE Elect.
As to the question of this thread, "Who are members of the covenants?", let me summarise:Of the options given, the second is the correct one.The Old covenant was breakable, and was in fact broken (Jer.31:32), The New covenant is "not like" that Old covenant. This means that all Israel was "in the covenant", but "not all are Israel that belong to Israel" (Rom.9:6); only the elect belong to God's eternal salvation Covenant.
Under the New Covenant every single one "knows the Lord" (Heb.8:11); the New Covenant of salvation by the Mediator Christ Jesus is confirmed to them absolutely (Heb.9:15).
As to Jews, their covenant status is broken because they rejected their Messiah (cf. the broken staffs Grace and Union in Zech.11:9-14). They wander many days without king of prince, without sacrifice or pillar etc. - throughout the Gospel age - until before the end God grafts them once more into the olive tree of Christ (Hosea 3:5; Matt.23:39; Rom.11:26). However, this engrafting into Christ has nothing to do with restoration to the ancient land. The latter has ceased to be relevant in God's purpose.
http://www.mountzion.org/PDFs/gochfg.pdf
http://www.mountzion.org/PDFs/convfg.pdf
http://www.mountzion.org/PDFs/aojufg.pdf
http://www.mountzion.org/PDFs/evanfg.pdf
http://www.mountzion.org/PDFs/repefg.pdf
http://www.mountzion.org/PDFs/etonfg.pdf
What kind of silliness is this? Jesus Christ would not have had to come and die if it were not for sin. God proved all were sinners and while he was proving it, he proved that there is no difference in sinners and later he said that one sin was all it took to be a sinner, lost and condemned to hell. James 2:9.
Then someone comes along and says there is a difference in sinners and God respects one sinner above another, thus disagreeing with the God of heaven.
Then God says he was satisfied with the payment of sin that his son payed for all sin and a crowd comes along and says he wrote that before he checked in with us and he is really only satified with the payment he made for our crowd. Corrections will be forthcoming. (So they write about 1 hundred new versions to confuse the issue).
Casob wrote:And I totally agree and have said it often. Men are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, nothing more and nothing less.
IE...Who *CAN* believe - And who CAN'T.
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
(although I totally reject the thought that only people who hold to certain peripheral beliefs can be saved).___
And I totally agree and have said it often. Men are saved by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, nothing more and nothing less.
However, having said that, we know about this gospel by the record God has given us in his word. There are things said about Jesus Christ that one must believe. For instance, God bore record that he died for the sins of the whole world. He bore record that he, God, was propitiated by that one sacrifice for all the sins ever committed. God bare record that he died for the ungodly after proving though the previous 3 chapters that every single man, woman, boy, and girl who had ever lived with the one exception of his son, were ungodly. God bore record that Christ died for every man. He bore record that anyone who would come to him through Jesus Christ shall be saved. He bore record that every person is a candidate for salvation and what we have is his word on it.
Now, these gentlemen say that is not so and these men present themselves as teachers of Christianity. Is someone going to tell me the way of salvation is to deny the record that God gave of his son.
How important is the word of God in our salvation?
1Pe
Stating "all Christians are Calvinists" is a facetious (yet cutting) way of saying that all Christians are ELECT BY GOD. So whether they know it or not, all Christians are "Calvinist" -- in a roundabout way! I doubt that the Christians of the early Church, as an example, had any conception of either Calvinism or Arminianism. All they knew was that they heard the Gospel and believed.
BTW, I did not make that statement. Someone on the other side of "The Pond" did! Now if I'm wrong in my assessment, I would hope that the "wiseguy" who DID make that remark would correct me and my interpretation. _
Speaking of literalists ...Casob - Being a literalist is fine IF one knows when the sense of the words found in Scripture are to be indeed taken literally. But the hallmark of Dispensationalism is that their brand of literalism takes them down paths which absolutely MISS the intended promises of God and force them to construct make-believe Church Ages and future Kingdoms built with bricks. The Jews of Christ's day made the very same mistake.
BTW, your "You do not believe these words" (ergo you're among the lost) is tedious, boring &
I included myself in the comment about the admonishion from 2 Co 13 and I have not made my argument about the covenants, the subject of this thread, from a dispensational but from a literalist view. I have told MurrayA, and anyone could have read it, that I am a dispensationlist because of the unconditional covenants of God and I do not believe the covenants because I am a dispensationlist.
If either of you would accept the covenants of God in the manner in which they were given, true and faithful and literal, then you would likewise be a dispensationalist like me.
You do not believe these words and you cannot blame me for it just because I expose it for everyone to see.
3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.37
I hate to say it, but this thought of only those who agree with such and such are saved, has been very plainly stated in a previous post that all "Christians are Calvinists."
You might not have said it, but it does come from Calvinists as well. I hope you are speedy to reject their thoughts as well as the "Dispy's" (although I totally reject the thought that only people who hold to certain peripheral beliefs can be saved).
Add to that is the inexorable logic of his position, and the many statements he has made which clearly amount to saying that anyone who rejects that Dispy system cannot be saved.
Such lack of Christian charity; such closed-minded bigotry beggars the imagination.
Casob wrote:I HAVE NOT PUMPED THE DISPY SYSTEM AT ALL.
This is such a blatant lie. A total falsehood!You want proof? Here are your own words, Casob, found in YOUR own post of 5/11/08 7:55 AM found on the [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/survey_details.asp?voteid=pu1190612143]]]"What is your theological system?" Survey[/URL]
The very FIRST sentence of Casob's post reads:
Casob wrote:IT IS TIME TO DEFEND THE DISPENSATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF THE SCRIPTURES:
This is reprehensible rubbish, a bigoted unchurching of many faithful and godly people, and an implied attack on Christ and His Apostles themselves, whose own hermeneutic of OT prophecy was very different from yours (e.g. Rom.9:25-26 and Hosea 1:10; 2:23), as I and others on this board have often pointed out to you.
You are welcome to your absurd literalism. You may keep it. I will never renounce my amillennial position for the sake of your outlook. Unlike you, I have a goodly heritage throughout church history in this regard.
BTW you never did reply to my point about reductio ad absurdam, although I often challenged you.
Also: I am well aware of John 12:47-48. They have nothing to do with the issue between us.
I am a dispensationlist because I am a literalist. My point is that I have been pumping the literalist position and asking you to believe the words in the Scriptures which you do not. This is where we differ. You do not think that the word "everlasting" means without time constraints as it relates to God's covenants with Israel. Some one of your persuasion even guffawed at the idea that God could keep his covenant for a thousand generations in Psa 105 and you remember what you have said about Zech 14 and Rev 20 as examples of your hermeneutic.
So, my conclusion is that you are a teacher of religion. You have had a lifetime to evaluate the words of the Scriptures to determine if you will believe them. Your comments indicate what your decision has been and so we reach different conclusions on every topic we discuss.
Here is a statement from on high about the importance of words.
Jn 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day
Consider:"Those who deny the promises in the covenants [i.e. in the Dispensational sense] and change the meanings of words like Jacob, Israel, everlasting, and others or make them mean something else are aiding and abetting Satan in his quest to defeat God."
and again:"However, whether you believe the words of the Scripture [read here: the Dispensational system and version of Scripture] is an indicator of salvation and you men have admitted you do not believe them and I agree that you don't."
Because you have so equated "the words of Scripture" with the Dispensational understanding thereof that they are entirely convertible terms, you cannot but insist that anyone who rejects that system cannot be saved.
However, I doubt whether you are capable of seeing the logic of your outlook.Whatever, simple disclaimers on your part (as above) that non-Dispensationals are not saved lack any credibility at all. Your reasoning and assertions are otherwise.
You asserted in a post some weeks ago (I can't remember when) that for many years you have interpreted Scripture dispensationally. Now you are trying to deny that that is your position. Yet your assertions are clear as day to any observer that you follow to the letter the Dispy system (the 14-point Abrahamic covenant, the division of Israel and the Church, the modern state of Israel in prophecy, the rapture, the 7-yr trib, the millennium etc. etc).
YOU brought 2 Cor.13:5 into the discussion - I did not - with sundry solemn warnings to examine myself as to salvation because I did not accept the shibboleths of your Dispy system. I find this highly objectionable.
"...that God has elected a few of you before the foundation of the world and he saves you at his own discretion and in his own time."And yet again you bring the Calvinistic bogeyman as a useful rod for my back, when I have never raised or discussed that issue with you.
Logic has never been your strong suit;Now it appears honesty is not either!
