|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 17, 2011 11:31:46 GMT -5
Jesus said in Matthew 12.25-26, "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?"- NKJV
In 1st Corinthians 1.10-13, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? " - NKJV
The subject of these two passages of Scripture is division. Whatever the organization, a house, a kingdom, or the church cannot stand if it is divided against itself.
When we look at the church today, what do we see? Do we see unity? Do we see oneness? Or do we see division?
In John 17, Jesus prayed that all believers would be one as He and the Father are one. In 1st John 5, the apostle wrote that the Father, the Word (Christ) and the Holy Spirit agreed as one. It is inquired in Amos 3.3, "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" - NKJV
What we see today is a church divided against itself. The church is so divided there are hundreds of denominations, and only God knows how many doctrinal interpretations there are. Under these circumstances, how can the church stand, for we do not see a house united, but rather a house divided.
How can the church claim to be one in Christ with all this division? How can individual Christians claim to be one in Christ with all this disagreement? We are not speaking the same thing, we are not perfectly joined together in the same mind and judgment. We are not one as the Jesus and the Father are one?
Christianity today is not follwing the teaching of Christ and the apostles regarding unity. So, is Christianity today really Christianity at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2011 13:26:02 GMT -5
But the church is not divided, that is, if one recognizes what the church is. The church is not a group of people meeting together. The church is not a denomination. The church is not a place where various policies and rules are enforced. The church is the body of Jesus Christ, i.e. all believers who have entered the new covenant. This is the unity.
All those other things are not representative of the real church. We don't go to church. We (if believers) are the church. Now, unfortunately, believers have disagreements and these have spread into denominations that enforce their adherents to belong to. He that is for us is not against us. However, it is these differences that are being used to simulate unity...
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 17, 2011 15:09:34 GMT -5
But the church is not divided, that is, if one recognizes what the church is. The church is not a group of people meeting together. The church is not a denomination. The church is not a place where various policies and rules are enforced. The church is the body of Jesus Christ, i.e. all believers who have entered the new covenant. This is the unity. All those other things are not representative of the real church. We don't go to church. We (if believers) are the church. Now, unfortunately, believers have disagreements and these have spread into denominations that enforce their adherents to belong to. He that is for us is not against us. However, it is these differences that are being used to simulate unity... I would agree with that, except for one thing. You and I both claim to have entered the new covenant, yet we disagree big time on various issues. An indication that you and I are not one as Jesus and the Father are one. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 17, 2011 15:36:50 GMT -5
I would agree with that, except for one thing. You and I both claim to have entered the new covenant, yet we disagree big time on various issues. An indication that you and I are not one as Jesus and the Father are one. Depends on what we think "one" means or refers to. If being one is outwardly determined by similarity, than no, we are not one. However, if being one refers to the intimacy of closeness that goes to the inner parts, an inner dwelling, than yes, we can be. Are we one with Christ because we are exactly like Him? Certainly not yet, but we are one with Him because He dwells in us, just as the Father dwelt in Him. (And then there is the whole institution of marriage that God gave as a picture of an in-dwelling that makes two into one.) But how are we one with another? It is by God's Spirit, not our conformity to each other. If I have within me the same Spirit that is within you, are we not then one? I believe so. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 16:05:06 GMT -5
But the church is not divided, that is, if one recognizes what the church is. The church is not a group of people meeting together. The church is not a denomination. The church is not a place where various policies and rules are enforced. The church is the body of Jesus Christ, i.e. all believers who have entered the new covenant. This is the unity. All those other things are not representative of the real church. We don't go to church. We (if believers) are the church. Now, unfortunately, believers have disagreements and these have spread into denominations that enforce their adherents to belong to. He that is for us is not against us. However, it is these differences that are being used to simulate unity... I guess when the mention that "The church is the body of Jesus Christ, i.e. all believers who have entered the new covenant. This is the unity." then this is where my definitions differ. I think that at one time the whole world (Israel) was under the Old Covenant but certainly not all of Israel were in unity to God. There were the faithful and the unfaithful but all were under the Old Covenant. Likewise the New covenant subjects all people on earth to it and some are faithful in Christ and some reject Christ but all still recieve what the New Covenant has to hand out according to that faith. While it is truee that all believers have entered the new covenant so have all unbelievers. For believers it is eternal life while for unbelievers it is death. The same was true for all Israel under the old covenant. Some were raised to life everlasting while some were raised to condemnation but yet all were under the Old Covenant. This is part of the reason the resurrection of the dead as told of in Daniel 12 is so much more clearer to me. Since only Israel (in my opinion) is who was raised from the dead at the end of the days then this explains how it is that only those Jews of the 1st century AD could be the ones cut off as natural branches. Certainly the dead were not cut off before the time Christ came into the world but they were judged by their faith to God according to the law of Moses. This is why Daniel was told some would be raised to life and some to condemnation. They were judged according to the Law. While those Jews at the coming of the Gospel of Christ were also judged, their judgment brought about their being cut off as natural branches and then remained that way unless they came to faith in Christ lest they die the death. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2011 16:54:01 GMT -5
I guess when the mention that "The church is the body of Jesus Christ, i.e. all believers who have entered the new covenant. This is the unity." then this is where my definitions differ. I think that at one time the whole world (Israel) was under the Old Covenant [glow=red,2,300]but certainly not all of Israel were in unity to God[/glow]. There were the faithful and the unfaithful but all were under the Old Covenant. Likewise the New covenant subjects all people on earth to it and some are faithful in Christ and some reject Christ but all still recieve what the New Covenant has to hand out according to that faith. While it is truee that all believers have entered the new covenant so have all unbelievers. For believers it is eternal life while for unbelievers it is death. The same was true for all Israel under the old covenant. Some were raised to life everlasting while some were raised to condemnation but yet all were under the Old Covenant. I guess we are miles apart here. I am under the impression that one can only enter the new covenant in Christ by faith, and in doing so, that makes the individual a new creation dwelling in the new Jerusalem... For you to say that everyone on Earth (I assume you meant it in a planetary sense) belongs to the new covenant, or is subject to the new covenant (perhaps there is a slight difference, I don't know) TO ME, leads to Universalism, although I fully realize you are not in favor of that docrine. I am not familiar with the NEW covenant body of death...and can you elaborate further as to what "death" would consist for the unbeliever within this new covenant? Since you brought it up, how were the OC Israelites to obtain " unity to God" if they were already under the old covenant? Sorry, Didy, if this seems like it has gone off topic. We are attempting to get at the stuff that divides the "houses" of our particular belief systems... I agree completely with Morris that perhaps we do not entirely understand what is meant by being "one" in Christ. I tried to express this same thought with other similar words, but it didn't get taken too well. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 16:58:34 GMT -5
I guess when the mention that "The church is the body of Jesus Christ, i.e. all believers who have entered the new covenant. This is the unity." then this is where my definitions differ. I think that at one time the whole world (Israel) was under the Old Covenant [glow=red,2,300]but certainly not all of Israel were in unity to God[/glow]. There were the faithful and the unfaithful but all were under the Old Covenant. Likewise the New covenant subjects all people on earth to it and some are faithful in Christ and some reject Christ but all still recieve what the New Covenant has to hand out according to that faith. While it is truee that all believers have entered the new covenant so have all unbelievers. For believers it is eternal life while for unbelievers it is death. The same was true for all Israel under the old covenant. Some were raised to life everlasting while some were raised to condemnation but yet all were under the Old Covenant. I guess we are miles apart here. I am under the impression that one can only enter the new covenant in Christ by faith, and in doing so, that makes the individual a new creation dwelling in the new Jerusalem... For you to say that everyone on Earth (I assume you meant it in a planetary sense) belongs to the new covenant, or is subject to the new covenant (perhaps there is a slight difference, I don't know) TO ME, leads to Universalism, although I fully realize you are not in favor of that docrine. I am not familiar with the NEW covenant body of death... Since you brought it up, how were the OC Israelites to obtain " unity to God" if they were already under the old covenant? Sorry, Didy, if this seems like it has gone off topic. We are attempting to get at the stuff that divides the "houses" of our particular belief systems... I agree completely with Morris that perhaps we do not entirely understand what is meant by being "one" in Christ. I tried to express this same thought with other similar words, but it didn't get taken too well. No, I get you. Its just that I see entering into the covenant of Christ is to be in Christ but to be under the New Covenant is where all people are whether you enter in or not. I don't mean that all are saved regardless. I mean all fall under the penalty of the New Covenant. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2011 17:13:21 GMT -5
No, I get you. Its just that I see entering into the covenant of Christ is to be in Christ but to be under the New Covenant is where all people are whether you enter in or not. I don't mean that all are saved regardless. I mean all fall under the penalty of the New Covenant. You do mean "Now, I get you," right? Not that you are out to get me because you disagree, right? Can you show me where you elaborate on the penalty of the new covenant? I can see the penalty related to sin, and death by sin, by I do not see sin in the new covenant. To me that is the whole point of the new covenant. Christ became sin for us that we would not suffer the penalty if in Him. Where is this new covenant of death expressed in Scripture. Perhaps I am being too lopsided... And by "entering in" are you referring to Revelation 22:14? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 17:34:00 GMT -5
No,,,,, I meant just what I said which was "no, I get you". In otherwords don't think I don't get you because I do. Now we are both confused    As to your question? John 3:16 No, I get you. Its just that I see entering into the covenant of Christ is to be in Christ but to be under the New Covenant is where all people are whether you enter in or not. I don't mean that all are saved regardless. I mean all fall under the penalty of the New Covenant. You do mean "Now, I get you," right? Not that you are out to get me because you disagree, right? Can you show me where you elaborate on the penalty of the new covenant? I can see the penalty related to sin, and death by sin, by I do not see sin in the new covenant. To me that is the whole point of the new covenant. Christ became sin for us that we would not suffer the penalty if in Him. Where is this new covenant of death expressed in Scripture. Perhaps I am being too lopsided... And by "entering in" are you referring to Revelation 22:14? |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 17, 2011 18:15:19 GMT -5
No, I get you. Its just that I see entering into the covenant of Christ is to be in Christ but to be under the New Covenant is where all people are whether you enter in or not. I don't mean that all are saved regardless. I mean all fall under the penalty of the New Covenant. The only people who are under a covenant are those who are members of the bodies named in the covenant. If the covenant is between God and Israel, and if Christ represents Israel in the new covenant, then one must be in Christ in order to be under the new covenant. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 18:32:41 GMT -5
No, I get you. Its just that I see entering into the covenant of Christ is to be in Christ but to be under the New Covenant is where all people are whether you enter in or not. I don't mean that all are saved regardless. I mean all fall under the penalty of the New Covenant. The only people who are under a covenant are those who are members of the bodies named in the covenant. If the covenant is between God and Israel, and if Christ represents Israel in the new covenant, then one must be in Christ in order to be under the new covenant. Does Christ represent Israel? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2011 21:21:40 GMT -5
As to your question? John 3:16 Sorry, still don't see what you are getting at. You need to explain what is meant by that verse in relation to the question I asked instead of just quoting Scripture. Nothing personal, but the dispies do the same thing. For instance, if I asked them why they believe in a physical rapture off of the planet Earth 7 years before the day of the Lord they would quote 1 Thess 4:17 even though it has absolutely nothing to do with my question. Are you saying that there was no perishing prior to to Christ's earthly ministry? Is this a different perishing? Can you elaborate on perishing? Is this your only verse that supports the new covenant penalty? I'm sure you must have more... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 17, 2011 21:58:01 GMT -5
Allyn, What you are saying makes sense to me. Just as the people of Israel were all under the Old Covenant, not all were faithful. But, God always had a remnant. It's the same with the New Covenant. It is possible to be under the New Covenant, that is under it's influence, under it's authority. But it takes faith in Christ to receive it's promises, all others receive it's penalties. On this issue, Allyn, we are one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 22:00:10 GMT -5
Allyn, What you are saying makes sense to me. Just as the people of Israel were all under the Old Covenant, not all were faithful. But, God always had a remnant. It's the same with the New Covenant. It is possible to be under the New Covenant, that is under it's influence, under it's authority. But it takes faith in Christ to receive it's promises, all others receive it's penalties. On this issue, Allyn, we are one. You said it better than I did. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 17, 2011 22:02:00 GMT -5
As to your question? John 3:16 Sorry, still don't see what you are getting at. You need to explain what is meant by that verse in relation to the question I asked instead of just quoting Scripture. Nothing personal, but the dispies do the same thing. For instance, if I asked them why they believe in a physical rapture off of the planet Earth 7 years before the day of the Lord they would quote 1 Thess 4:17 even though it has absolutely nothing to do with my question. Are you saying that there was no perishing prior to to Christ's earthly ministry? Is this a different perishing? Can you elaborate on perishing? Is this your only verse that supports the new covenant penalty? I'm sure you must have more... Its the verse that came immediately to mind, Ted. Let me try better tomorrow. I need to hit the hay. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 17, 2011 22:24:45 GMT -5
The only people who are under a covenant are those who are members of the bodies named in the covenant. If the covenant is between God and Israel, and if Christ represents Israel in the new covenant, then one must be in Christ in order to be under the new covenant. Does Christ represent Israel? I don't know, what do you think? (That's why I said "If".) |
|
|
|
Post by simplyforgiven on Jan 18, 2011 1:59:49 GMT -5
Didymus,
I couldnt say it any better myself.
Nice Post.
I think exactly the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 18, 2011 8:29:00 GMT -5
Does Christ represent Israel? I don't know, what do you think? (That's why I said "If".) I don't think I have read that Jesus is Israel. Israel is the bride of God so I can't see that Jesus would represent the bride. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 12:38:00 GMT -5
Allyn, This is the first time I considered the Covenants in this way. But, when I read what you wrote, it made sense to me. It is the same way with preterism. It didn't take me long for it to make sense to me. I'm sure many of us have had moments where we read or hear something seemingly for the first time and say to ourselves, "that makes sense." It also fits this topic as well. Entering into a covenant relationship with Christ is one more reason we as the church should not be a house divided, but rather a house united. If persons A & B were both in a covenant relationship with Christ, are they not in a covenantal union with Christ? And since there is one covenant by which we can have that relationship, by that one covenant we are one as the Christ and the Father are one. So, this idea of the covenant fits into this topic very well. However, this could have been established without the understanding that all the people of the world ( kosmos) are under the New Covenant. However, I never made the connection before now. In most of my Christian up-bringing, the subject of the covenant rarely, if at all, ever came up. The word was uttered at communion when the person leading us would read the words, "this is the blood of the covenant..." It was never explained what that means. Churches don't seen to teach enough about the covenant relation to salvation, how that Christ died to end one covenant and to bring in force another and more better covenant. At least this is true of the churches I've been in. Perhaps they fear covenant theology, or the possiblity of going toward Calvinism. For whatever reason, there has been little discussion of the covenant in the churches I've been in. It wasn't till becoming a preterist that I considered the ramifications of the covenant. And I still have much to learn. A better understanding of the covenant, I believe, will get me closer to the oneness I seek. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 20:52:16 GMT -5
And Didymus, because the churches today (especially dispensational ones) don't teach much about the covenant (as you rightly said), they are unable to understand WHERE the unity is. They are attempting to achieve unity in doctrine within the covenant relationship, and have totally forgotten that unity IS the covenant relationship!
P.S. - Allyn, perhaps you could start a new thread as to how you develop this new covenant of death. I am very interested how it differs with the first understanding of death...perhaps there is other info available somewhere else???
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 21:38:36 GMT -5
And Didymus, because the churches today (especially dispensational ones) don't teach much about the covenant (as you rightly said), they are unable to understand WHERE the unity is. They are attempting to achieve unity in doctrine within the covenant relationship, and have totally forgotten that unity IS the covenant relationship! P.S. - Allyn, perhaps you could start a new thread as to how you develop this new covenant of death. I am very interested how it differs with the first understanding of death...perhaps there is other info available somewhere else??? Covenant of death? Did I miss something? The New Covenant is simple. It's explained in John 3.16 & 17. Those who believe in Christ recieves eternal life. Those who do not believe in Christ "are condemned already." I'm unaware of a covenant of death. The New Covenant is a covenant of life. Those in a covenant relationship with God and His Son have eternal life. Those who are not in the covenant relationship will not have eternal life. Where did this covenant of death come from? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 21:50:28 GMT -5
"Allyn, perhaps you could start a new thread as to how you develop this new covenant of death." Covenant of death? Did I miss something? The New Covenant is simple. It's explained in John 3.16 & 17. Those who believe in Christ recieves eternal life. Those who do not believe in Christ "are condemned already." I'm unaware of a covenant of death. The New Covenant is a covenant of life. Those in a covenant relationship with God and His Son have eternal life. Those who are not in the covenant relationship will not have eternal life. Where did this covenant of death come from? Didymus, I hoping Allyn will be able to develop this idea further. Where did it come from? It came from a few posts above: "Likewise the New covenant subjects all people on earth to it and some are faithful in Christ and some reject Christ but all still recieve what the New Covenant has to hand out according to that faith. While it is true that all believers have entered the new covenant, so have all unbelievers. For believers it is eternal life while for unbelievers it is death. [The added underlined emphasis is mine] Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=churchtalk&thread=757&page=1#8295#ixzz1BRgakthv" |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 22:02:54 GMT -5
"Allyn, perhaps you could start a new thread as to how you develop this new covenant of death." Covenant of death? Did I miss something? The New Covenant is simple. It's explained in John 3.16 & 17. Those who believe in Christ recieves eternal life. Those who do not believe in Christ "are condemned already." I'm unaware of a covenant of death. The New Covenant is a covenant of life. Those in a covenant relationship with God and His Son have eternal life. Those who are not in the covenant relationship will not have eternal life. Where did this covenant of death come from? Didymus, I hoping Allyn will be able to develop this idea further. Where did it come from? It came from a few posts above: "Likewise the New covenant subjects all people on earth to it and some are faithful in Christ and some reject Christ but all still recieve what the New Covenant has to hand out according to that faith. While it is true that all believers have entered the new covenant, so have all unbelievers. For believers it is eternal life while for unbelievers it is death. [The added underlined emphasis is mine] Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=churchtalk&thread=757&page=1#8295#ixzz1BRgakthv"I saw that post. I don't see anything about a covenant of death there. The New Covenant, the Covenant Jesus died to bring in force is a covenant of life. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 22:16:10 GMT -5
I saw that post. I don't see anything about a covenant of death there. The New Covenant, the Covenant Jesus died to bring in force is a covenant of life. Perhaps I misunderstood what Allyn said then...I'm sure he will clear up any misunderstanding of mine. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 18, 2011 22:51:01 GMT -5
I saw that post. I don't see anything about a covenant of death there. The New Covenant, the Covenant Jesus died to bring in force is a covenant of life. Perhaps I misunderstood what Allyn said then...I'm sure he will clear up any misunderstanding of mine. I will try my best. I'm behind already but I have made a note to myself. |
|
