|
|
Post by didymus on May 23, 2010 15:04:59 GMT -5
I realize that this will probably rattle some cages, but I believe this is a question that needs to be dealt with. While fufilled prophecy is true, that's not all there is to Christianity. First and foremost, preterists must be Christians, having faith in Christ alone for their salvation. Belief in any particular Biblical doctrine does not save anyone without faith in Christ. All that Jesus the Christ accomplished and said is the foundation of Christianity. We must be under His authority. If we are Christians, should we not be one in Christ? The apostle Paul wrote much about division in the first four chapters of 1st Corinthians, starting with 1.10-13. Let's face the fact that preterists are divided. We don't speak the same thing. We certainly are not "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement." There are several types of preterism, and various understandings within those several types. Division, according to Paul, is carnality. (See 1st Corinthians 3.3) With this much division, it's obvious we are not one in Christ, therefore all preterists are not Christians. To be a Christian, one must be in Christ. You can not be a Christian unless you are in Christ. Those who claim to be Christian but are not in Christ are nothing more than pretenders. When one is in Christ, he is one with others who are in Christ. The result of this extraordinary union is that we will all have the mind of Christ. Those who have the mind of Christ will have the same mind, and then will speak the same thing. This union is far from what preterists are. We are so divided that it is hard to know what preterism really is. The number one is so descriptive of Christianity. There is one God, one Lord, one faith, one hope, one cross, one mind of Christ, one kingdom, one church established by Christ and the apostles, etc. But our multiple beliefs do not at all show that oneness - does it? The apostle Paul asked, "Is Christ divided." I ask, is Christ divided in regards to Bible prophecy?  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 23, 2010 20:01:54 GMT -5
So who's one set of doctrines should we all embrace in order that we all be one in Christ? Does it matter if the doctrines agreed upon are correct, just as long as we are all of one mind? A good article I read recently that addresses this has this as part of the concluding paragraph: "It is not uniformity our Father seeks from His children; such is neither achievable nor desirable! What the Father seeks is unity and harmony; a oneness that comes from union with Him, not from agreement with one another." Source: Fellowship's Uniformity Factor - Agree With Me on Everything I Consider Essential or Get Out of My Church! www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx429.htm |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 23, 2010 23:53:49 GMT -5
So who's one set of doctrines should we all embrace in order that we all be one in Christ? Does it matter if the doctrines agreed upon are correct, just as long as we are all of one mind? Whose one set of doctrines? The set doctrines of Christ as taught in the New Testament. Shouldn't union with Him (Christ) result in agreement with one another, providing we are all in the same union with the same Christ? Didy  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on May 24, 2010 8:35:46 GMT -5
Shouldn't union with Him (Christ) result in agreement with one another, providing we are all in the same union with the same Christ? Didy If that is truly the case, then no one is saved... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 24, 2010 11:44:44 GMT -5
Shouldn't union with Him (Christ) result in agreement with one another, providing we are all in the same union with the same Christ? Didy If that is truly the case, then no one is saved... Oh contrare, my good man, That simply means FEW are on the road to eternal life, which is what Jesus taught. See Matthew 7:14. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on May 24, 2010 16:01:20 GMT -5
If that is truly the case, then no one is saved... Oh contrare, my good man, That simply means FEW are on the road to eternal life, which is what Jesus taught. See Matthew 7:14. If we are all to be in agreement, then, like I said before, NO ONE is saved except maybe for one individual on this entire planet - or maybe that individual has already died.... And here is the very simple reason why: There are no two single Christians anywhere throughout history that have agreed COMPLETELY in EVERYTHING - not one. And if that is true, and it surely is, then one or both of those two "Christians" is not a Christian because they both cannot be right. For example, take this forum as a subset. Only one person here might be a Christian because we ALL have varying differences in doctrine. Now, if you combine that with the countless other forums, then only one of that enlarged subset might be Christian because no one from all those forums agrees completely either. Now, if you expand that to the globe, you get the same thing. Understandeth what thou readeth? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 24, 2010 18:39:26 GMT -5
Each person thinks he or she is among the FEW because he or she believes the right things. No wonder Christians abandon the faith. They look at the in-fighting and myriad of doctrines and throw up their hands in despair.
This may sound topsy-turvy to some, but I find that the deeper I get into the Word, the more accepting I become of those who disagree with me. That doesn't mean I stop digging for truth, I just don't disparage or upset the faith of others on the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 25, 2010 2:47:45 GMT -5
I want to say at this point that I am not setting myself up to be judge. No one has accused me of that, so I trust you do understand. God is the judge. I am not paid enough to take on that job. I do believe this is important to discuss as it seems to me that the oneness of the believer appears to be important to Christ and the apostles. In John 17 Jesus prayed that all believers be one. Paul wrote about the unity of believers in various place. So, it appears to me that the doctrine of oneness was very important to them, and it should be important to us as well. I am not saying we must agree about everything. As Mell has pointed out, that's impossible, if you are walking in the flesh. Even Paul and Peter ad a huge argument over Mark. But, I don't recall Paul and Peter ever disagreeing on anything regarding Christ. Both exhibited great respect for Christ, and we should too. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on May 25, 2010 7:42:02 GMT -5
I want to say at this point that I am not setting myself up to be judge. No one has accused me of that, so I trust you do understand. God is the judge. I am not paid enough to take on that job. I do believe this is important to discuss as it seems to me that the oneness of the believer appears to be important to Christ and the apostles. In John 17 Jesus prayed that all believers be one. Paul wrote about the unity of believers in various place. So, it appears to me that the doctrine of oneness was very important to them, and it should be important to us as well. I am not saying we must agree about everything. As Mell has pointed out, that's impossible, if you are walking in the flesh. Even Paul and Peter ad a huge argument over Mark. But, I don't recall Paul and Peter ever disagreeing on anything regarding Christ. Both exhibited great respect for Christ, and we should too. Yes, unity is important. But to make unity a requirement for salvation is wrong. As you said, Jesus prayed for BELIEVERS (already existing) to be one (future request). I no longer walk in the flesh...but I am sure my definition of "flesh" is far different than yours. Flesh is related to the old covenant and spirit is related to the new covenant. That is why they were contrasted so often in the NT which is essentially a transition of covenants, from old to new. And speaking of oneness, are the following two verses speaking of unity or numerical quantity: 1 John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Which begs the question, "Must Christians believe in the trinity of God as a ONE-PERSON Divinity" in order to be in covenant with God?" |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 25, 2010 8:24:12 GMT -5
Yes, unity is important. But to make unity a requirement for salvation is wrong. As you said, Jesus prayed for BELIEVERS (already existing) to be one (future request). This is why so many disagree. Someone makes a statement of truth, then someone else comes along and mischaracterizes that statement. Jesus said in John 17.20, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word." "... but also for those who will believe in Me through their word." Who is this referring to? It is plain, in John 17, Jesus was 1st praying for the disciples/apostles. Then he prayed for those who believe in Him through the word of those disciples/apostles. Mell, we do not disagree, although, the flesh is not just regarding the old covenant. Sometimes it is referring to our sinful condition. But, certainly, the old covenant was a fleshly covenant, and the new covenant is a spiritual. Another reason for disagreement. You just assumed we disagreed, and you stated as fact, which can actually cause disagreement that was there in the first place. This is a variant reading. I am certainly not going to go to war over a variant reading.  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 25, 2010 8:36:56 GMT -5
Sorry, but I forgot to address this comment. Mell said It is not a requirement for salvation, and I don't believe I said that. Prior to salvation, you are one with the world in sin and trespasses. Unity is the condition we are in after salvation. We are in Christ, and therefore, one with all others who are in Christ. Why doesn't that make sense to you? It is what the New Covenant is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 25, 2010 11:06:49 GMT -5
A good article I read recently that addresses this has this as part of the concluding paragraph: "It is not uniformity our Father seeks from His children; such is neither achievable nor desirable! What the Father seeks is unity and harmony; a oneness that comes from union with Him, not from agreement with one another.Agreed! If peripheral doctrine was as vital to God as most Christians make it to be, He would have made these things explicitly clear in scripture. I find that the bible speaks of "belief"; not "beliefs". Belief in God and His Christ; not in doctrinal beliefs. Beyond Christ, I can see one 'doctrine', " everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and again, "To the pure, all things are pure" (Titus 1:15). For this is what we are told, " And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us." (1 John 3:23) We have made Christianity so complicated with all of our doctrines and in general ignore the base commands of the faith - belief in Christ and love to one another. We need to be reminded that "Truth" is Christ, not what we may believe. For example, 1 Peter 1:22 " Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart." Notice the relationship between truth and love. 1 John 2:3-6 " We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did." God's love being in us is equated to the truth being in us. 1 John 3:18,19 "Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence" Notice again the relationship between truth and love. 1 John 5:6 " This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." Correct doctrine isn't referred to as the truth but rather the Spirit is the truth. 1 John 5:20 " We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Here, Christ is called "true". 2 John 1:1 "The elder, To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth - because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love." Yet again, Christ, truth, and love are related. 3 John 1:6-8 "They have told the church about your love. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. We ought therefore to show hospitality to such men so that we may work together for the truth." I think that the working for "the sake the Name" is analogous to "work together for the truth". This 'work' is reported as 'love'. 3 John 1:12 "Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone—and even by the truth itself." Is it right to personify "truth"? It is if the truth is the Spirit, that is Christ, rather than merely 'correct belief'. My point in this exercise is to hopefully show that truth is not about correct beliefs, i.e. doctrines, but it is about a God who is real, true, and desires to live in us. As Jesus declared, in John 14:6, " I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:15-17 " If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." If truth is simply "the true or actual state of a matter" (including a doctrine), anyone should be able know something that is truth. However, it says the world cannot see or know the Spirit of truth. Furthermore, the condition of seeing or knowing this Spirit of Truth is based on love. A person can believe what is correct or true but still not have the truth as defined in scripture. Thus, we find in James 2:19, " You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." Even demons can have true doctrines but they don't have "the truth". I should probably stop now... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 25, 2010 13:40:15 GMT -5
Morris,
Excellent post.
Didy
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 25, 2010 14:50:36 GMT -5
Thanks, Didy!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 25, 2010 17:06:04 GMT -5
Excellent post, Sheldon!
Believe in God and believe in His Son, Jesus Christ. "Believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1).
To believe in "the name" of Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23, 1 John 5:13) is, I believe, to recognize Christ as Lord in your heart and of your life (1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 4:5), believing that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9).
The commandment of God is to believe in His Son, and the commandment of the Son is to love one another. It's as simple as that.
1 John 3:21-23 NASB
(21) Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
(22) and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.
(23) This is His (God's) commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He (Jesus) commanded us.
-------
2 Corinthians 11:3-4 NASB
(3) But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
(4) For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
Did you ever consider that all the different doctrines that are out there, and the emphasis on what one must believe in order to be "right," that very mess of confusion itself is a deception leading us away from the simplicity of Christ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 25, 2010 17:34:34 GMT -5
Good post, Bev. So true.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on May 25, 2010 18:48:29 GMT -5
To believe in "the name" of Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23, 1 John 5:13) is, I believe, to recognize Christ as Lord in your heart and of your life (1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 4:5), believing that God raised him from the dead[/color] (Romans 10:9).[/size][/quote] I wonder if it matters if the place of the dead was the physical grave (tomb) or was it the place of the dead ones (hades). Added to this, one has to wonder if it was the raising of His body or the raising of His soul. Big differences if you ask me...but I know you didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 25, 2010 20:03:21 GMT -5
Morris and Bev, You both made points that support what I've been saying for years. Christianity is way to complicated. In America it has become a multi-billion dollar industry. I do not believe that is what Christ and the apostles intended. Bev quoted several passages dealing with the "simplicity in Christ." But, in this present day, much of what is called "Christianity," probably would not be recognized by the apostles. We need to get back to the basics of Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 26, 2010 1:00:49 GMT -5
To believe in "the name" of Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23, 1 John 5:13) is, I believe, to recognize Christ as Lord in your heart and of your life (1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 4:5), believing that God raised him from the dead[/color] (Romans 10:9).[/size][/quote] I wonder if it matters if the place of the dead was the physical grave (tomb) or was it the place of the dead ones (hades). Added to this, one has to wonder if it was the raising of His body or the raising of His soul. Big differences if you ask me...but I know you didn't.[/quote] How about both?Acts 2:31 NASB (31) he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 26, 2010 9:45:37 GMT -5
Christianity is way to complicated. In America it has become a multi-billion dollar industry. I do not believe that is what Christ and the apostles intended. Indeed. Look at 1 Timothy 6:3-6 " If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain." However, this does not exempt us from the base command of the faith; to love one another with a love that comes from God. This is absolutely true. I'm reading a book entitled "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died" by Philip Jenkins. (Don't read into the 1000 year bit; it has nothing to do with any so-called millennium). It gives an amazing historical perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on May 26, 2010 10:19:17 GMT -5
How about both?Acts 2:31 NASB (31) he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. Wouldn't that make the SIGN promised by Christ of no effect? The sign cannot be the same thing as the actual event. That is why I choose to accept the raising (resurrection) to have occurred in the Hadean realm - an invisible event that needed the sign. To me, the sign was the reincarnated Christ into His undefiled body. The disciples (or anyone else for that matter) would not have known that the resurrection HAD TAKEN place if there was not the attached sign... Matthew 12:38-40 - Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 26, 2010 10:55:51 GMT -5
How about both?Acts 2:31 NASB (31) he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. Amen! If His flesh did not see decay, what happened to it? The only answer I've able to find in the bible is that He was glorified. But the flesh is what died. Ephesians 2:14-16 " For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one [the "uncircumcised" & "the circumcision", vs.11] and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility." It's a side bar of this thread to say the least, but this is why I have difficulty with a "covenant transition period". Christ's flesh abolished the law on the cross. If "soon" truly meant "soon" then "It is finished" truly meant "finished". Hebrews 2:14 " Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death." It was death in His humanity that he destroyed the devil. If it was death of His spirit that accomplished that, there would be no need to appear as the children, flesh and blood, and yet it was this sharing of humanity that made the devil's destruction possible. I don't even think Jesus' spirit died at all. Jesus said, " Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). Also, " Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father" (John 13:1). And it was by the spirit that He preached to the spirits in prison; 1 Peter 3:18,19 " For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison" This doesn't sound like a dead spirit to me, personally. (Sorry for the tangent). |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 26, 2010 11:10:26 GMT -5
Wouldn't that make the SIGN promised by Christ of no effect? The sign cannot be the same thing as the actual event. That is why I choose to accept the raising (resurrection) to have occurred in the Hadean realm - an invisible event that needed the sign. To me, the sign was the reincarnated Christ into His undefiled body. The disciples (or anyone else for that matter) would not have known that the resurrection HAD TAKEN place if there was not the attached sign... Matthew 12:38-40 - Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The sign wasn't the resurrection. The sign was Jesus himself, his message, and the timing in the heart of the earth; three days and three nights. Luke 11:29-32 " As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on May 26, 2010 11:36:33 GMT -5
It's a side bar of this thread to say the least, but this is why I have difficulty with a "covenant transition period". Christ's flesh abolished the law on the cross. If "soon" truly meant "soon" then "It is finished" truly meant "finished". If "finished" meant finished, then the Gospel message is void of any resurrection...but, then again, I do not know what context you believe "finished" applies to. The NT is entirely about the transition of covenants. That is why the new covenant message went to the Jews first. The Jews in Jerusalem, the Jews in Samaria, the Jews in Judea, and the Jews in the rest of "their" world... Covenant, covenant, covenant... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on May 26, 2010 12:36:50 GMT -5
Christianity is way to complicated. In America it has become a multi-billion dollar industry. I do not believe that is what Christ and the apostles intended. Indeed. Look at 1 Timothy 6:3-6 " If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain." However, this does not exempt us from the base command of the faith; to love one another with a love that comes from God. This is absolutely true. I'm reading a book entitled "The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died" by Philip Jenkins. (Don't read into the 1000 year bit; it has nothing to do with any so-called millennium). It gives an amazing historical perspective. Morris, Your quote of 1st Timothy 6.3-6 sums up the matter. It is a perfect description of what "Christianity" has become in this world. And, an overwhelming amount of people who call themselves "Christian" are a part of it. But, thanks be to God, few have come out from among them. Great post.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 26, 2010 13:59:36 GMT -5
To believe in "the name" of Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23, 1 John 5:13) is, I believe, to recognize Christ as Lord in your heart and of your life (1 Peter 3:15, 2 Corinthians 4:5), believing that God raised him from the dead[/color] (Romans 10:9).[/size][/quote] I wonder if it matters if the place of the dead was the physical grave (tomb) or was it the place of the dead ones (hades). Added to this, one has to wonder if it was the raising of His body or the raising of His soul. Big differences if you ask me...but I know you didn't.[/quote] Are you saying that Christ "raised from the dead" refers to being raised out of a "place of the dead" rather than raised from the state of being dead? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 26, 2010 14:07:21 GMT -5
How about both?Acts 2:31 NASB (31) he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. Wouldn't that make the SIGN promised by Christ of no effect? The sign cannot be the same thing as the actual event. That is why I choose to accept the raising (resurrection) to have occurred in the Hadean realm - an invisible event that needed the sign. To me, the sign was the reincarnated Christ into His undefiled body. The disciples (or anyone else for that matter) would not have known that the resurrection HAD TAKEN place if there was not the attached sign... Matthew 12:38-40 - Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. This makes sense to me. I would say that his spirit did not remain (either asleep or inert in the grave, or among those in a "Hadean realm," depending on your belief), but was raised to life. However, this being something invisible to humans, as proof, his body was preserved and raised up, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 26, 2010 15:30:44 GMT -5
If "finished" meant finished, then the Gospel message is void of any resurrection...but, then again, I do not know what context you believe "finished" applies to. Finished applies to God's plan of salvation in all in aspects. This is why we use the phrase "the blood of Christ" when speaking of salvation. Not to diminish the significance of the resurrection, but the power is in the cross; the sacrifice was first required before the reward could be imparted. 1 Corinthians 1:17 " ...but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Corinthians 1:18 " For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." Galatians 6:14 " May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" Colossians 1:19,20 " For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." Colossians 2:13-15 " When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." With the sacrifice made, glory could then be received. Luke 24:26 " Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" With the sacrifice finished, the covenant had been made! A covenant requires a death, not a resurrection. Matthew 26:28 " This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Hebrews 9:16-18 " In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it , because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood."
Once the covenant has been put into effect, the benefits become available. Now here's the connection: If Christ has not received the promised benefit, what chance is there of us receiving it? The promises were made to HIM! It is through Him that we receive them; we are His co-heirs.
Galatians 3:16
"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ."
2 Corinthians 1:20
"For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God."
Colossians 2:13,14 tells us that "Christ... canceled the written code... he took it away... nailing it to the cross". This does not sound transitional to me. But is this merely the law and have nothing to do with the covenant? Let's look.
Hebrews 8:13
"By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.""
The very fact that there is a new covenant, that fact alone, makes the first one old and obsolete.
Hebrews 9:1,4
"Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary... and the gold-covered ark of the covenant... and the stone tablets of the covenant"
Is the covenant spoken about here related to the law? It says the covenant had regulations, calls the ark of the covenant, and the stone tablets that the commandments were written on of the covenant.
Unless the author of Hebrews was misusing the word covenant, I believe the old covenant was nailed to the cross.
Hebrews 10:9,10
"Then he [Jesus] said, Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Notice that phrase "set aside". It means something far stronger, "to take up, i.e. adopt; by implication, to take away (violently), i.e. abolish, murder". |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on May 26, 2010 17:11:44 GMT -5
Sheldon, I posted this in the Covenant Transition topic, but copying it here to see if you agree.
I think the Law was abolished for those who would be crucified with him (baptized into his death). In other words, converted Jews were no longer under the Law. But until the destruction of Jerusalem—the heart and pulse of the Old Covenant Law—it was still a reality for unbelieving Jews, even though it was no longer a valid covenant in God's eyes. So the "transition" is one in appearance. God did not have two covenants active at the same time.
Sheldon, is this in agreement with how you see it? What about you, Ted?
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on May 26, 2010 18:14:49 GMT -5
Sheldon, I posted this in the Covenant Transition topic, but copying it here to see if you agree. I saw the other post first and so answered in that post. (Otherwise, that appears agreeable). |
|
