You are not logged in.
Bob,
At one time I looked up Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Like many such theologies they have good points and errors. I believe that any such theology that lessens the importance of the Law of God is in error. God is a God of love, and His love is expressed in law. As soon as there were two created beings in the universe, there had to be a law! Some will say that Christians are under a law of love. Well Romans says that it is by the law that we recognize sin. How can you take a nebulous concept as "love" (with no law) and recognize sin? However, expressing love in accordance with the Ten Commandment law makes real sense. It gives you a real solid guide as to what is the will of God in our lives. In the New Covenant He even promises to write this law in our hearts.
Another problem with "covenant theologies" is that they are more "theology" than "covenant." This is why I have tried to take the historical approach to look at the covenant.
For Elaine, God "put enmity" between the woman and her seed and the serpent (Satan). He took the initiative in accordance with "New Covenant" principles. As progenitor of the human race, that covenant covered all humanity through history. It is because of the promised Redeemer in that covenant by which we are saved. This covenant was given in more detail and with more formality to Abraham. The Abrahamic Covenant extended to all his descendants. -- including the Christian church. (If ye be Christ's, ye are Abraham's seed).
Some call the command to avoid the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to be an old covenant (Obey and live, disobey and die!). I look on this as an application of the Law of God, under which all created beings live. If you want to call it a covenant I will not argue.
At Sinai another covenant was made. God offered them the Abrahamic covenant with rich promises to make of them an holy nation. He gave them the Ten Commandments, and wrote them in stone to make them unchangeable. The people promised to do all that God said. Abraham, when he received the covenant fell on his face before a holy God, he believed and in effect said, "Lord, do with me as you will."
Throughout Old Testament times, Israel had a concept of only ONE God and ONE covenant. In the New Testament we learn of a God who is God in three persons. The sacrifices were ended at the cross. Christian Jews had difficulty letting go of the rest of the ceremonial law, including circumcision. Paul wrote Hebrews for that reason. I believe that in Hebrews he was not writing against the old "covenant" but against the corruption of the covenant. That is another topic, and will take the rest of my life to discuss.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Elaine, why I believe that Hubb confuses things with a term not in the Bible, the Everlasting Covenant between God and Jesus, is I feel they are so close to suggest the need for a contract or covenant to hold God or Jesus to a Redemption Plan for man takes away my vision of God. It is unbiblical and can only be surmised. This is from EGW or other writers.
However, your last statement that we can only be under one covenant, read as follows:
Galatians 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ephesians 3:6 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
Notice what some might call the Abrahamic Covenant, and in the OT calls the circumcision an Everlasting Covenant, which becomes the circumcision of the heart of the New Covenant, and referred to as a Promise, that is how we can be under two "Covenants". Certainly I am not referring to the Old Covenant. It is obsolete, and disconnected from the New Covenant. Hubb believes the law written on the heart is the Old Covenant Law. I believe he is wrong. 2 Cor 3:7 talks specifically about the engraved tables of stone, not as Hubb does but Paul as inspired by God/Jesus does:
2 Cor 3: 4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-11-11 2:25 am)
Offline
Bob, I believe we are in agreement--with nearly all the Christian world.
Offline
Elaine,
To answer your question as to how many covenants we are under, we need to examine each one to make it understandable and reasonable. First there was the Everlasting Covenant of God which was formed between Father and Son “before the foundation of the world.” This phrase is frequently used in the Bible. The Holy Spirit was also involved in making the covenant effective in the lives of men (and women).
See John 3:16 and John 10:17,18. You have to think about these verses and understand just what they mean. There is also this verse:
. . . . 6 “Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
7 “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
8 “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
9 “I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.
10 “I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation” (Psalms 40:6-10; see also Hebrews 10:7).
See also John 4:34; 19:30; and all of chapter 17. His will as a predetermined plan is also suggested in John 7:17; 9:31; Romans 9:19; Ephesians 1:5,9; Colossians 1:9; Hebrews 13:21; 1 John 5:14; Revelation 17:17.
The relationship between man and God were in a plan between the Father and Son from all eternity. This plan is referred to in the Bible as the everlasting covenant, as the everlasting Gospel, and we call it also the plan of salvation. “Everlasting covenant” is also applied to covenants made with men, and you have to know the context to understand the meaning. The covenant of grace (everlasting covenant of God) was revealed to the patriarchs. The focus of this covenant was that the Father would give, and the Son would come to live and die to pay the penalty of the broken law. Men would be given an “enmity” against sin, on the initiative of God in line with the New Covenant.
The covenant was “made” with Abraham. Significant in this is that all blessings from the cross of Christ, and the covenant made with Abraham details the blessings of God to His people. The covenant made with Abraham was different from the everlasting covenant of God. Any covenant made with man is dependent on man’s response, which at best is temporary, and must be renewed from time to time. We find evidences of this in Bible history.
The covenant was made first with Abraham, then renewed with Isaac, Jacob, Moses at the burning bush, with Israel when Moses returned from Midian to confront Pharaoh, and again at Sinai. This “Abrahamic Covenant” was the covenant under which Israel lived all through their history as a nation; and was extended to the Christian Church as “If ye be Christs, ye are Abraham’s seed).
There is no discussion in the Old Testament of more than one covenant - the Abrahamic Covenant, unless one sees the New Covenant as another covenant (actually it can also be a “renewed” covenant in line with the numerous other renewals of the covenant).
The old covenant, new covenant, and other terms are New Testament terms and need to be discussed separately.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb has said:
The relationship between man and God were in a plan between the Father and Son from all eternity. This plan is referred to in the Bible as the everlasting covenant, as the everlasting Gospel, and we call it also the plan of salvation.
Hubb show us where Biblically, with no surmising that the emphasized part of your quote is true.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-11-11 3:10 pm)
Offline
We seem to be overlooking something here. Given that God knows the end from the beginning Both God the father and His Son knew with complete certainity that both Lucifer and A&E would sin.
It appears strange to me that there would be an agreement/covenant between the two over
Last edited by Old Abe (02-11-11 4:29 pm)
Offline
Hubb:
The New Covenant is prominently mentioned in Jeremiah which was not in effect at that time. To what New Covenant was Jeremiah referring to?
Offline
Bob,
In my post #119 I listed a number of non-Adventist commentaries and websites that believe in the covenant between Father and Son before the foundation of this world. I had assumed that you had a concordance to look up "before the foundation of the world," and "lamb slain before the foundation of the world," "Mystery ..... ,' and the numerous texts that show that Jesus came as a human being to do His Father's will. The wording for these phrases will change according to location and translation, but the sense is there. If you are looking for the specific words "everlasting covenant" to describe the council between Father and Son before the foundation of the world, they are not there. If you are a rock hound, you have to realize that the gems are not always found on the surface of the ground!
In Genesis 17 the term "My Covenant" is used six times. It was also used three times for Noah. Generally "My Covenant" is used 52 times in the Bible. What do you think of the possessive, "My Covenant?" Whatever I say will be wrong, so I will let you think about it.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Elaine,
I would have to take your question as a bait. You know very well what covenant Jeremiah was referring to. I am not sure that Jeremiah knew. Actually, the word used for "new" can also be translated "renew". The Abrahamic covenant was renewed a number of times in Old Testament history. Another factor is that the covenant had been so abused and corrupted that a renewal of the covenant would come as "New" covenant to Israel.
Jesus said, "This cup is the new testament (covenant) in my blood." I think most will agree that is what the New covenant is directly referring to. However, the term "New Covenant" has come to mean any and all covenants of grace, and its application will be very broad on that account.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Cadge,
To ask your question, is to assume that you think God is singular and arbitrary in what He does. This is not true. God is very open and transparent in what matters to His creatures. I don't think the Father and Son needed a covenant. But the angels and men did need it -- and that means the sinless creatures as well as sinful men. When the history of sin is finally resolved, it is the desire of God to fully show to all His created beings that His actions are on the basis of love, mercy, and justice. This is important as this is what His government is built on.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
The New Covenant, surely, is the one introduced at Christ's death, is it not? As so minutely expressed in the many texts, it is no longer contained in letters, letters written in stone, but in Spirit. How can Paul's many letters regarding the reason for the Law (letters engraved in stone) which were given only to lead to Christ, be ignored, now that He has come, we no longer need the Law (or pedagogue)?
The attempt to return to the Law, which Adventists continually emphasize, is to return to the Old Covenant made with the Israelites (Abraham had no letters in stone), and reject the intent of Paul's writing which were directed specifically to the new Christian church. There was a new era introduced at Christ's death and changes were made from the Jewish system to incorporate all nations and tribes, something antithetical to the Jew who viewed all others as unclean pagans. The barrier has now been removed, there is no longer any separation between the two: they have been made one. Who is trying to rebuild the barricade again by separating Christians?
Offline
Hubb, you can choose to name your forum as you please, but I did not say you had to have any old scholar to believe what you teach. I assumed that you would find some with the truth. I have no Biblical statement that we all should look at Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a Contractual or Covenantal manner. The Bible does not say it, and as I said you are surmising. If Abraham had become evil and break the covenant, God would have had to turn elsewhere so in that sense it is conditional not unconditional.
The NT calls this Abrahamic Covenant "The Promise", why not call your forum that. If we are to be Solo Scriptura, why turn to surmising but use sacred, inspired scripture, rather than a concocted phrase for the relationship between Father and Son. For you to say it is in the Bible only now to tell us, "the sense" is there, bothers me a whole lot. I have looked the enormous amount of work you have done on your forum, but I am deeply disturbed with the Name that is unbiblical for that relationship amongst the Godhead.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 12:42 am)
Offline
Hubb said:
However, the term "New Covenant" has come to mean any and all covenants of grace, and its application will be very broad on that account.
Where do you get this foolishness!! How hard are you trying to save face over this concept? Apparently quite a long way, away from inspired scripture. Sorry Hubb, but you are just wrong on this. Stick to the Bible. Your problem as you warn SDAs on your forum, that if they believe the Old and New Covenants are disconnected, the Sabbath has no basis and you are correct, but to go to the length you have to make a lie, truth, amazes me!!!!
Last edited by bob_2 (02-11-11 8:44 pm)
Offline
OK, so maybe I scared you away, Hubb? You had kids right, when you made promises to each other either way, was there always a written contract. Is it correct to say you have a contract with your son or daughter to pay back a car loan that you helped her with, when it was only a handshake or a promise verbally . Most parents would be insulted that this would be suggested from outside the family. What of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit's reputation, how do you think they feel when you suggest the Father covenanted with the Son to give His life to save the very beings they created together. Help me with this Hubb, because it does not compute, for me!!!!
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 12:46 am)
Offline
Cadge,
To ask your question, is to assume that you think God is singular and arbitrary in what He does. This is not true.
What question? You lost me. I haven't the slightest idea what you're referring to here. If Christ is God, then why would He need to make a covenant with himself?
Cadge
Offline
Cadge,
Sorry, I think it was Old Abe that I was responding to. I was responding to the concept that the Father and the Son needed a covenant. I think I have already given my answer to this question. the covenant was given to reassure men and Angels that God was committed to what they had planned. It was for created beings, not for God.
Bob, you did not scare me away. Though I am beginning to think I am wasting my time with all these questions that you and others know the answers to already. In looking at the actions of God, we need to accept what He has done, not try to make it fit human ideas.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Amen, Hubb, that is what you are doing; calling something a Covenant that God and Jesus may have made without talking with either one of the parties. EGW doesn't count. :~{
Do you feel that surmising an Everlasting Covenant between Father and Son, will attract people to a non-Biblical concept???
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 11:03 am)
Offline
"concept that the Father and the Son needed a covenant."
A concept is not a clearly defined statement but "something conceived in the mind; an abstracdt or generic idea generalized from particular instance; idea."
Lacking a clear biblical identification of a covenant between Jesus and His Father, this idea lacks in subtantiation and is rather devoid of biblical clarity. "Fuzzy" thinking leads to "fuzzy" doctrine.
Offline
My last posting ( number 131 above) did not come through in its entirity so I will try again.
Given that God knows the end from the beginning there never was any question "if" either the devil (lucifer) or A&E would sin it was only a matter of "when" and even that was known precisely by God.
So why would a rational loving God go through with a creative procedure knowing full well how disasteruous it would be for all concerned.
And do not give this "free will" malarky.God did not sit down with Adam before He made Him and give him a say in whether or not he wanted to exist.
Like everything/ human/ plant or animal not one has any choice in existance nor of what their individual genome will be.
I realize this is not a new idea but it appears to me that the Bible writers were trying to explain the unexplainable and not doing a very good job of it.
Was there ever really and Eden and a golden age in the earth's history or is it a subconcious feeling we carry from the pre birth experience when we become indistinctly aware of being.
Personally I do not know but the story of the upheaval of the Deluge appears to parallel the trauma of birth. Thrust out of a safe watery haven into a harsh foreign environment we ( man and beast) begin to die the moment we draw breath.
Maybe there are no answers
Offline
For those who object to the domain name www.gospelandcovenant.com you might try www.whyask.org and see what happens. You will go to the same place!
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb said:
Bob, you did not scare me away. Though I am beginning to think I am wasting my time with all these questions that you and others know the answers to already. In looking at the actions of God, we need to accept what He has done, not try to make it fit human ideas.
Hubb in visiting your "Everlasting Covenant.com" site, it doesn't appear to me that I or anyone here is claiming all the truth, but it appears you have. Wow, I commend you on, at least, the effort, WOW, again. However, I understand why you didn't put that effort into www.atomorrow.net . Too many contenders for the truth would have diluted YOUR message.
If you are giving us the same ideas as given on that site, why not just do a "link" so you don't have to "chew your cabbage twice"?
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 5:59 pm)
Offline
New Covenant Theology (NCT) is rather new, relatively speaking, so even Wikipedia, depending on the contributors may not give an accurate picture. Zaspel, is one the clearer proponents of NCT as this article will show what differs with your quote from Wikipedia:
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/h … cs/nct.htm
Last edited by bob_2 (02-12-11 6:28 pm)
Offline
Bob,
Thank you for visiting my site. I have put a link to my site as my "signature." I realize that this does not narrow down to answer a specific question, but I have tried to accommodate this by a complete table of contents, and a section content list on each article. I have put thousands of hours on this since 2004. I cannot claim to have all the truth. What I want and need is some serious feedback from people who are willing to study it out as I have.
As you know, the wording used in the Bible to present the covenants is not always easy to understand. One has to go back and forth and try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together. As you have surmised, I am fully convinced on the truth of the seventh-day Sabbath and of the formation of the plan of redemption before the foundation of the world. There are other issues and possible insights on which I am still struggling which will change much of what I have written. Given my basic premises as mentioned above, maybe it is not reasonable for me to expect helpful dialog from persons who hold opposite basic premises.
My approach then will have to be to finish my thesis on the website, then to approach knowledgeable people where ever I can find them and try to get their feedback -- or to take a master's degree course and involve the appropriate faculty in this study. Meanwhile if this discussion has caused some people to think about the issues, it was worthwhile.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
The Law is a very poor expression of love, unless today we consider that our civil laws are really expressing love. Where is love ever mentioned in the Decalogue--as if love could ever be commanded! Which is stronger between parent and child: law or love? Which is the first impression as parents we want to give our children?
The Decalogue was given for a specific people at a specific time, no others. As slaves, they were not given freedom to either think or do, but to obey. This is why God gave rules, rather than edicts they had to first believe. They were told explicit types of offerings for specific sins, and were given explicit rules or nearly every possible event in their lives. Which is why it seems incredulous to find 21st century reasoning for the continuation of all those rules today. They were not for all times, but, as Paul said, until the seed should come.
Identifying everything God said as "Law" confuses the meaning. God gave Adam and Eve only two specific instructions (and none at all about observing any day): "Be fruitful and multiply" and Don't touch the tree of Good and Evil." The natural inclination of humans is curiosity (is it not God-given?} and the pair were curious.
Without curiosity man would remain animals: we desire to know, it is in our genes. Did God not know what they would do? The age-old question: If He knew, why create them with the ability to know both good and evil? If He didn't know, was He caught by surprise?
Is the NT the final revelation of God, or should we return to the rules and law of the OT? Didn't Christ come to reveal the Father who had been misunderstood? Why didn't Jesus rescind the most important ritual of the Jews: circumcision? Why did He leave that to the apostles? Were they given the power through the Holy Spirit to rescind such an ancient God-given covenant with Abraham? The Bible gives the meaning of circumcision and its importance: no non-Jew was ever allowed to observe the Jewish Law unless he had first been circumcised; the whole Jerusalem controversy was based on this initiation into Judaism when the Jews were endeavoring to force the new Gentile believers to submit to circumcision. Had they done so, they would have been Jewish converts and then, and only then, could they observe all the Jewish ceremonies, of which sabbath is one of their most important ceremonies. This is why, in many places, Paul writes that we are not to judge on a day, or diet (the dietary rules prevented Jews and Gentiles from interacting in any ways, as the Middle Eastern customs, to this day, require all strangers be given food and drink), but the Gentiles were called "dogs" and could not be in the company of Jews. With the new Gentile Christians, there came a show-down and the old Jewish requirements were swept away, which is one of the freedoms brought in by the New Covenant: no longer are there Jews and Gentiles; free and slave; male and female, but all one in Christ Jesus.
Do you believe that Christ ever wanted His body to be divided? The Christian church has been divided too long over inessential beliefs, clouding the true meaning of Christianity.
Offline
Hubb, supplying that link, I was expecting your feedback on it, or would that be too revealling to the group here. How about some dialog which you wish for???
Offline