How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

bob_2 · 03-09-09 12:07 pm

Much of Scripture is devoted to explaining or recording how God fulfills the promises He made to Abraham. People get confused as to exactly how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled and how it relates to other covenants. The Abrahamic Covenant contains both the Old and New Covenants. That is, the Old and New Covenants are the physical and spiritual fulfillments of the Abrahamic Covenant. The covenant God made with Abraham reveals God’s plan to save a people and bring them into His land. Under the Old Covenant, God physically saves the people of Israel (the physical descendants of Abraham) from the Egyptians and brings them into the Promised Land, Palestine. Under the New Covenant, God spiritually saves His people (the spiritual descendants of Abraham) from sin and condemnation and brings them into the spiritual land (salvation rest now and in heaven). Thus, the Abrahamic Covenant “contains” both the Old and the New Covenants. Let me show you how it all fits together.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu62iO7VJm … ctbook.pdf

(Message edited by Bob_2 on March 09, 2009)

neal · 03-09-09 10:43 pm

Bob

I hate to deflate whatever inconsequential idea you may have dreamed of for this irrelevant quote from this non-consequential author, but the fact is Yahweh is not the God of Palestine.

I know, poor boy. The stupid really hurts. But sometimes its better to wake up with the concubine than the verse.

Ciao!!!

bob_2 · 03-10-09 6:52 am

Go ahead we haven't heard an atheistic sermon in a while. Tell us why after reading the Bible 4 times, got that folks four times, why this passage is wrong.

Course your knowledge is always right and everyone is always wrong, so go ahead lets hear your words of "wisdom"????

bob_2 · 03-10-09 6:56 am

Steve Lehrer happens to be one of the prominent scholars of New Covenant Theology. Did you miss that concept when you read the Bible four times. You seem to have quanity but not quality. You quality seems to come from pagan sources. You sure ATomorrow is where you wish to spout that knowledge.

bob_2 · 03-10-09 11:16 am

What Does “All Israel” Mean?
There are five options to consider:
1. All ethnic descendants of Abraham. This option is knocked out in Romans 9:6.
2. All ethnic descendants of Abraham living when God initiates a special working among the Jewish people. This option and option #3 are variations on the most popular interpretation. These options specifically miss the emphasis on the contemporary nature of Paul’s argument, as well as the consistent and sustained emphasis on the remnant of Israel.
3. The majority of Jews living at the time of a special saving activity of God. In addition to the comments made above about this option, it has the added burden of explaining how “all” means “most.”
4. All elect Israelites within ethnic Israel. I believe this is the strongest view, given the continual differentiation between Israel and the Gentiles in Romans 9-11, as well as the emphasis on the elect or the remnant within Israel. This interpretation still allows ‘all’ to mean every last one of a particular group, which in this case is all of the elect ethnic Israelites.
5. Both Jews and Gentiles who together constitute the church of Christ, the Israel of God. Lee Irons has an excellent paper arguing for this conclusion called ”Paul’s Theology of Israel’s Future: A Non-Millennial Interpretation of Romans 11.”25 But it is hard for me to get around the consistent emphasis throughout Romans 9-11 that differentiates between Gentiles and ethnic Israel. I could still buy Irons’ argument if it weren’t for the verses immediately after verse 26 that once again differentiate between the two groups:
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you (Romans 11:28-31).
Conclusion
I don’t believe that Romans 11 teaches that there is a promise for a national future salvation for all of ethnic Israel. In this passage, Israel is guaranteed that God’s salvation is still available to any Jew who repents and believes. If my method of arriving at theological truth were “counting the noses” of the great men who have held to a particular understanding of Scripture, then I would certainly believe that Romans 11 teaches about a future national redemptive event for Israel after all elect Gentiles are saved. Some of the famous noses I would count would be those of Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Herman Ridderbos, George E. Ladd, Geerhardus Vos, John Piper, Wayne Grudem, John Murray. The list could go on and on. Each of these amazing theologians dwarfs me in his knowledge of the Word, his natural abilities, and his industriousness. But after counting their noses and considering their learned opinions on Romans 11, I think that they all came to the wrong conclusion. I know it sounds like hubris, but when I read their interpretation of Scripture and stack it up against my reading of Scripture, I am unpersuaded of their learned opinions. The fact that such an amazing group of Christian scholars has a different interpretation of Scripture than I do certainly gives me pause, and causes me to re-examine my point of view with a critical eye. But at the end of the day I cannot arrive at theological truth by counting noses. I can use the opinions of great men as a guide, but I must weigh their opinions and see if they persuade me or not. I believe each theologian in the list above would agree with me that nose counting is no way to arrive at theological truth.

bob_2 · 03-10-09 11:39 am

Is New Covenant Theology Antinomian?
This is a common question asked about NCT. Let me begin by saying as forcefully as possible, “NO!” Of course, the question deserves a fuller answer than that. So let me begin by trying to come to terms with the term antinomian. Antinomianism is a heresy that is incompatible with authentic Christianity. The term antinomianism refers to the belief that Christians do not have biblical law that they must obey today.26 That is, it is the belief that Christians are “lawless” people. A belief that is necessarily connected to antinomianism is that Christians cannot sin. Sin is defined in Scripture as breaking God’s law (1 John 3:4). If there is no law, then it is impossible to sin. A life of wickedness, of course, results from such an abhorrent belief. Thus, antinomianism is a longstanding heresy that is fought against by all faithful Christians.
In theological circles the term antinomianism is much like the term child abuse. It is usually said in a whisper because it is so scandalous. It is important that we carefully consider the words we choose to use. Consider the following fictional exchange:
“The Bible encourages child abuse! Aren’t you appalled and shocked?”
“Wait a minute! How does it encourage child abuse? The Bible never tells us to brutalize our children.”
“No, it does something far more dangerous! It encourages child abuse because it teaches us that we need to tell our children that they are sinners. That abuses their self-esteem! Such treatment of a child’s delicate psyche is far more brutal than mere physical abuse.”
Now before you get too excited, I don’t believe that the Bible encourages child abuse. I am a firm believer in telling our children the gospel, which consists of both the bad news and the good news. I want my child to have Christ-esteem, not self-esteem. The purpose of the dialogue above was to make the point that the words we use matter. The way in which the phrase child abuse was used above, not only slanders the one being falsely accused and connects a label to him that is hard to shake, but it trivializes the awful crime itself! In the same way, some people have chosen to call NCT an antinomian system of theology. Doing so breeds serious misunderstanding of NCT and trivializes true antinomianism.
Writers and teachers are in the word business. Words are the tools of their trades. For Christian theologians, the skill of explaining the use of Greek and Hebrew words is a necessity since those are the original languages of the Scriptures. But the use of words and therefore language—Greek and Hebrew included—is governed by rules. We need to be careful how we use Greek and Hebrew. If we are not careful we wind up making a big mess and hurting people. An example of this can be found in Ligonier Ministries’ theological magazine called Tabletalk in an article that appeared in 2002 critiquing NCT’s view of the law:
NCT even sounds a clear alarm against antinomianism. However, we must be careful to ascertain what NCT means when it speaks of antinomianism. We must ask: Against what law? And what does the word against mean? Does it mean against altogether? Could it mean against in part? The prefix anti has various nuances. It can mean ‘against,’ ‘instead of,’ or ‘in place of.’ In
other words, although NCT may not be against law in an absolute sense, if it denies the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the New Testament, and if it replaces the moral law with another, then it is antinomian on two counts.27
Notice, the meaning of the word antinomian now no longer has a fixed definition. Neither the context nor its consistent historical usage determines what the word means. The author tells us that the meaning of antinomian is now determined by the flexibility of the Greek prefix anti. He broadens the meaning of the word to include one who does not see that all of the OT “moral law” is applicable today. It also could mean one who sees one law being used in place of another. With this transformation of the meaning of the word, suddenly NCT can be labeled antinomian.
Is this really a proper use of Greek? Consider what happens if we are simply consistent with the author’s argument concerning the definition of antinomianism and apply it to that which all Christians believe: We learned that anti can mean “against all of something” or “against part of something.” No Christian believes that the laws that regulated sacrifices, the laws that regulated how Israelites planted their fields, or how they kept their beards are still binding today. Therefore, all Christians are against part of the Old Covenant law, so they must all be antinomian! This conclusion is, of course, unacceptable and shows us how careful we need to be with our words.
In the same article we find further criticism of NCT that we need to consider: “ ‘Moderate antinomianism’ has resurfaced under a new banner…New Covenant Theology (NCT) extols the Lordship of Christ in Christian ethics, which we applaud (Westminster Confession of Faith, 19:5), but it does so at the expense of moral law.”28 Now, if this statement were to go unqualified, New Covenant Theology would seem to be an utter contradiction. How does one extol Lordship, and yet do away with moral law? Isn’t the essence of Lordship obedience to Christ? Aren’t Christ’s commands and the commands of the Apostles considered God’s laws? Aren’t these laws moral in their character so that if one were to disobey any of these laws it would be sinful? Yes. So what does the author mean when he uses the term “moral law”? He uses the term “moral law” in a very specific way. When you hear this you immediately think of absolute standards of right and wrong. But many people define “moral law” specifically as the Ten Commandments. Because NCT views the Decalogue as no longer binding on believers in the New Covenant era and many people believe the Ten Commandments are the unchanging “moral law of God,” NCT is often considered to be antinomian. But to define moral law as the Ten Commandments begs the question: Does Scripture tell us that there is an unchanging moral law of God and what does Scripture say that it is?
We must not load up the term “moral law” with our theological presuppositions.29 New Covenant Theologians are trying to guard against such mistakes while taking biblical law seriously. If you are a believer, what law you are to obey is a very big deal. The primary way we express our love for God is through obedience to His commands. How can I love my Lord if I don’t know what He wants me to do? How can I avoid sinning against Him?
NCT embraces the law of Christ, which is the law that is applicable to believers today. The law of Christ includes the commands given by Christ30 and His Apostles. There are many, many laws in the New Covenant Scriptures and space constraints will not allow me to list them all, but just a few of the many laws that believers must obey in the New Covenant era are found in the book of Ephesians:
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry and do not give the devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all
bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you (Ephesians 4:25-32).
These are very specific laws that all believers must obey, and when they do not, they sin. So, let’s put this critique of NCT to bed now. NCT is not antinomian. The question concerning law that NCT asks believers to consider is not “Do believers have to obey any of God’s laws today?” But rather, “Which of the many laws in Scripture does God want His children to obey in the New Covenant era?”

bob_2 · 03-10-09 12:46 pm

Neal, sorry to pop your bubble, but there is such a thing as a Palestinian Covenant:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Palestinian-covenant.html

neal · 03-10-09 2:28 pm

... there is such a thing as a Palestinian Covenant:

Bob

There is no such thing as a Palestinian Covenant. Some people today use the term "Palestinian" because of the political connotations.

The promise to Abraham, which passed to Israel, was for the territory from the great river in Egypt to the Euphrates in present day Iraq. You can look it up in Genesis 15 or 16 I believe.

The term 'Palestine' is not even used except once (I believe) in the Old Testament. In the Book of Joel there is a mention of Tyre and Sidon but it seemed to me that it was referring to those cities as where the Israelites were going to be dispersed to OUTSIDE of the promised land.

The references to the land owned by Yahweh to be inhabited by His people encompasses territory in Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine.

So, to claim that a covenant about the territory from the Dead Sea to the coast of the Med down to the Great River in Egypt, as was talked about in your quote, as a Palestinian Covenant is nothing more than political propaganda.

If you go read Deuteronomy 29 sometime you will find that there was a prophecy (to be fulfilled in ancient times) when all of Yahweh's land was going to be destroyed by Yahweh Himself like He did Sodom & Gomorrah. The WHOLE place was going to stink like sulfur.

In conclusion, there is no popping of any bubble.

neal · 03-10-09 2:30 pm

Maybe if Iran nuked Israel it would fulfill the prophecy in Deuteronomy 29.

The LORD works in mysterious ways.

Right?

bob_2 · 03-10-09 3:04 pm

Neal, everyone to their own opinion. Thanks.

neal · 03-10-09 3:09 pm

Those were not opinions. They were conclusions based on facts, evidence, and reason.

I am always interested in belief modification & even revision if new facts and evidence are shown to me. Please show me something (from the Bible, preferably) that debunks my position and I would more than willingly accept your position.

Until you do, my position will stand as being the correct one.

bob_2 · 03-10-09 3:17 pm

So be it, Mr. Walls. I have no more time for you right now, maybe when I wish to show you further scholars referring to the Palestine Covenant, I will strike it up with you, but you can Google as good or better then some of us.

neal · 03-10-09 3:32 pm

maybe when I wish to show you further scholars

Baptist Preacher/teacher Enns is not the type of person I would refer to as a 'scholar'. He teaches Dogmatic Theology which emphasizes the importance of propositional truth over experiential, sensory perceptions.

IOW, forget what you see and KNOW, lets sit around and make up some propositions and come to truth that way. Kinda like, forget the 800,000 years of the ice cores, lets make a proposition that Genesis is correct and argue from that FALSE proposition.

The guy is not somebody that I would quote if I were you trying to defend a theory.

bob_2 · 03-10-09 6:13 pm

You two should be right at home if you claim he is totally making thinks up that come out of their mouths. Most Dispentationalist Theologians refer to land promises, the Davidic Covenant and the Philestine Covenant. Look them up under what source them come up under. The Bible makes land promises to Israel, and various theologians have various ideas what happens to those land promises in end times. You can believe atheistically whatever atheists or Spegetti monsters belief in.

neal · 03-11-09 7:24 pm

The "land promises" were from a tribal deity that had a specific piece of land as it's inheritance. Yahweh was given a specific piece of land. He was one of 70 sons of God. The other 69 sons had their own inheritance.

To attempt the universal application of this tribal deity is pointless.

bob_2 · 03-11-09 7:48 pm

From your mouth to this God's ear!!!

bob_2 · 03-11-09 7:53 pm

Oh, Neal, I forgot to ask, was the Speghetti Monster one of the 69 sons. He built a ship I suppose and sailed to Italy and that's how the meatball got started, eh??? Do you have a shrine in your living room with a bowl of maranara sauce offerred each day???

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 03-09-09 12:07 pm

How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#2 03-09-09 10:43 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#3 03-10-09 6:52 am

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#4 03-10-09 6:56 am

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#5 03-10-09 11:16 am

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#6 03-10-09 11:39 am

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#7 03-10-09 12:46 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#8 03-10-09 2:28 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#9 03-10-09 2:30 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#10 03-10-09 3:04 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#11 03-10-09 3:09 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#12 03-10-09 3:17 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#13 03-10-09 3:32 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#14 03-10-09 6:13 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#15 03-11-09 7:24 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#16 03-11-09 7:48 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

#17 03-11-09 7:53 pm

Re: How Do The Abrahamic, Old, And New Covenants Fit Together?

Board footer