|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 19, 2011 12:27:36 GMT -5
I am starting this thread because this is a subject that has crept up in another thread. It shows signs of going beyond the intent of the OP in "A House Divided." Allyn said, Later, Mellontes said, At that time I didn't think a new thread was necessary. The discussion could still relate to the OP. Soon after, I responded, That is my basic understanding of the New Covenant, that it is a covenant of life and not a covenant of death. Then Mellontes replied, That is when I started to see that this was going to go in a direction not intended by the OP. This is my understanding of what Allyn said, I don't see a covenant of death in anything Allyn said, nor in Scripture. We are talking about the Covenant of Christ. The Covenant that Jesus shed His blood to bring into force, and through His ressurection, we who are in a Covenant relationship with Christ, have eternal life. The Covenant of Christ is a life giving covenant, because Christ has been made a "life-giving/quickening spirit." Death is the consequence of not being in a covenant relationship with Christ. And, I am not talking about physical death, but spiritual death, which is being separated from God eternally. The Old Covenant in which God said to the people of Israel. "Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today..." One covenant, two results. For obedience a blessing, for disobedience a curse. So it is in the New Covenant. One covenant, two results. Have faith in Christ, receive eternal. Have no faith in Christ, receive eternal death. I hope this is a good enough explanation. Knowing you guys, it probably isn't. Now it's your turn.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 1:03:02 GMT -5
Didymus, I think it is necessary to stress NEW covenant of death as the topic. This was what I was hoping Allyn would explain further. I actually thought it was in another thread already...yes, I found it further extrapolated at livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=101&thread=760&page=1#8327I think we are all aware of the original death. To me, it was the new covenant that would remove this old death. I just don't see another death entering the scene that becomes part of the new covenant of death. To me, it is just the same old death that we needed redemption from...if you are not in this new covenant then the same death still applied. Maybe it is just a question of semantics. And if not, I am with you in this, Tom, that the new covenant was a covenant of Life through Jesus Christ and Him alone. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 4:23:01 GMT -5
Didymus, I think it is necessary to stress NEW covenant of death as the topic. This was what I was hoping Allyn would explain further. I actually thought it was in another thread already...yes, I found it further extrapolated at livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=101&thread=760&page=1#8327I think we are all aware of the original death. To me, it was the new covenant that would remove this old death. I just don't see another death entering the scene that becomes part of the new covenant of death. To me, it is just the same old death that we needed redemption from...if you are not in this new covenant then the same death still applied. Maybe it is just a question of semantics. And if not, I am with you in this, Tom, that the new covenant was a covenant of Life through Jesus Christ and Him alone. A "new covenant of death" would presuppose an old covenant of death, would it not? Was there an olde covenant of death? Thanks for the link. Are you satisfied with Allyn's answer there? I haven't read the whole thread yet. How many NHNE threads are there? I though I saw another one.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 8:48:08 GMT -5
A "new covenant of death" would presuppose an old covenant of death, would it not? Was there an olde covenant of death? I agree that would presuppose an old covenant death. I propose the following as that old covenant death: Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Romans 5:12-14 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Especially interesting is that bolded and underlined portion! I am curious to see the distinctions between the old covenant death and the new covenant death that I think Allyn is referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 20, 2011 9:20:55 GMT -5
A "new covenant of death" would presuppose an old covenant of death, would it not? Was there an olde covenant of death? I agree that would presuppose an old covenant death. I propose the following as that old covenant death: Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Romans 5:12-14 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Especially interesting is that bolded and underlined portion! I am curious to see the distinctions between the old covenant death and the new covenant death that I think Allyn is referring to. Ted, Am I mistaken or was it you and not me who used the phrase of Covenant of death or covenant death. I don't think I did but maybe. I believe I have been saying the whole world is under the New Covenant and this is so because Jesus is King of kings. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 13:57:43 GMT -5
A "new covenant of death" would presuppose an old covenant of death, would it not? Was there an olde covenant of death? I agree that would presuppose an old covenant death. I propose the following as that old covenant death: Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Romans 5:12-14 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Especially interesting is that bolded and underlined portion! I am curious to see the distinctions between the old covenant death and the new covenant death that I think Allyn is referring to. At least your on topic this time. Genesis 2.17 is not a covenant of any kind. God mad a command, and told Adam the consequences for disobedience. There is no indication that Adam agreed. Nor did Adam vow to keep the covenant. The fact is, you haven't established an old covenant of death, so how do you expect anyone to make a distinction? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 14:06:07 GMT -5
Ted, Am I mistaken or was it you and not me who used the phrase of Covenant of death or covenant death. I don't think I did but maybe. I believe I have been saying the whole world is under the New Covenant and this is so because Jesus is King of kings. Allyn, If you look at the OP, you will see that Ted used the term "covenant of death." I had a suspicion that he was using the back door approach to discuss Covenant Creation. Sure enough he brought up Gen. 2.17 as a covenant. The quotes in the OP are in chronological order, with the exception of the last one. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 14:13:45 GMT -5
Allyn, If you look at the OP, you will see that Ted used the term "covenant of death." I had a suspicion that he was using the back door approach to discuss Covenant Creation. Sure enough he brought up Gen. 2.17 as a covenant. The quotes in the OP are in chronological order, with the exception of the last one. Didy, I must INSIST that you back off with your comments about me and CC. It is not a nice thing when you say I am using a " back door approach to discuss covenant creation" and that you were suspicious of it. My views on this are WIDE OPEN. I don't need back door approaches... Please tell me how you reconcile the first Adam with the last Adam by using only the old covenant and the new covenant. Please tell me why we experience a return to the garden with the tree of life being present with the traditional view of the old covenant. In other words, why is there so much Genesis terminology being used in the finality of the new covenant. It doesn't originate from Sinai, does it? After you have intelligently answered those 3 questions, you may go back to harassing me...but not before. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 14:21:04 GMT -5
Ted, Am I mistaken or was it you and not me who used the phrase of Covenant of death or covenant death. I don't think I did but maybe. I believe I have been saying the whole world is under the New Covenant and this is so because Jesus is King of kings. Nope. Neither phrase. What I did suggest, however, was that you had to be referring to some kind of NEW covenant death. I coined that phrase because you admitted (as you do here) that you believe all of humanity (including the unregenerate) is presently under the new covenant. You also added that it gets kind of tricky for the unbelievers under this new covenant. I would have to agree. I also suggested to Didy that he change the topic title (if possible) to reflect a new covenant of death because you have unbelievers in this new covenant yet they do not receive life. I got the idea of new covenant death because of what you said: "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." Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=churchtalk&action=display&thread=757&page=1#ixzz1Bb5OkEXWI believe that the death you mentioned is still a result of the first covenant and not the second one. I see only a new covenant of LIFE in order to redeem those under the first covenant of death. I do not see unbelievers in this new covenant at all, in any way, shape, or form. That is why I think you must have some sort of new covenant of death to explain the existence of unbelievers in this new covenant. IMO, you cannot be using the old covenant of death to be placed into the new covenant because the old has passed away with the consummation of the new. I don't know how better to explain what I think you are saying. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 14:25:31 GMT -5
Allyn, If you look at the OP, you will see that Ted used the term "covenant of death." I had a suspicion that he was using the back door approach to discuss Covenant Creation. Sure enough he brought up Gen. 2.17 as a covenant. The quotes in the OP are in chronological order, with the exception of the last one. Didy, I must INSIST that you back off with your comments about me and CC. It is not a nice thing when you say I am using a " back door approach to discuss covenant creation" and that you were suspicious of it. My views on this are WIDE OPEN. I don't need back door approaches... Please tell me how you reconcile the first Adam with the last Adam by using only the old covenant and the new covenant. Please tell me why we experience a return to the garden with the tree of life being present with the traditional view of the old covenant. In other words, why is there so much Genesis terminology being used in the finality of the new covenant. It doesn't originate from Sinai, does it? After you have intelligently answered those 3 questions, you may go back to harassing me...but not before. Touchy today. Okay then a wide open back door approach. As far as reconciling the two Adams, I don't know. I don't even know if I need to know. As far as Genesis terminology is concerned, the only thing I can say is that if you are going make a parable as Jesus often did, you need something to base that parable on. If you base a parable on a tree, it would help the hearers to know what a tree is. I wasn't harassing you. I was stating a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 14:30:10 GMT -5
I agree that would presuppose an old covenant death. I propose the following as that old covenant death: Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Romans 5:12-14 - Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Especially interesting is that bolded and underlined portion! I am curious to see the distinctions between the old covenant death and the new covenant death that I think Allyn is referring to. At least your on topic this time. Genesis 2.17 is not a covenant of any kind. God mad a command, and told Adam the consequences for disobedience. There is no indication that Adam agreed. Nor did Adam vow to keep the covenant. The fact is, you haven't established an old covenant of death, so how do you expect anyone to make a distinction? Okay Didy, you win. Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 15:47:59 GMT -5
At least your on topic this time. Genesis 2.17 is not a covenant of any kind. God mad a command, and told Adam the consequences for disobedience. There is no indication that Adam agreed. Nor did Adam vow to keep the covenant. The fact is, you haven't established an old covenant of death, so how do you expect anyone to make a distinction? Okay Didy, you win. Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. The first sin committed by Adam, in violation of God's command. Adam was not a covenant breaker since there was no covenant to break. What about Eve? Did she sin? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 20, 2011 15:50:03 GMT -5
Okay Didy, you win. Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. I know I'm not Didy... but... I'd just like to briefly point out a few things for consideration. Acts 3:25 "You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ " This is one verse of many that suggest when the covenant was made. Romans 2:12 " For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law". Man will die even without the law if he sins. Since the law was the conditions of the covenant (beginning with circumcision), the " and as for you" component, it was not mandatory that the covenant be broken in order to have sinned. Said another way, one could sin apart from breaking the law/covenant. If this wasn't the case then the Gentiles, all those who had not entered the first covenant, would not need the new one through Christ. Yet Paul shows us that even without the law one could sin. One other interesting little passage; Genesis 48:15,16, " And [Israel] blessed Joseph, and said: “God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has fed me all my life long to this day, The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads..." |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 17:16:13 GMT -5
Okay Didy, you win. Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. The first sin committed by Adam, in violation of God's command. Adam was not a covenant breaker since there was no covenant to break. What about Eve? Did she sin? Sorry. Still waiting for you to answer my question first: Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 20, 2011 17:17:01 GMT -5
Okay Didy, you win. Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. The first sin committed by Adam, in violation of God's command. Adam was not a covenant breaker since there was no covenant to break. What about Eve? Did she sin? No covenant to break? How do you know? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 20, 2011 17:20:15 GMT -5
Hey Sheldon,
The Law obviously is the "ministration of death" as found here:
2 Corinthians 3:7 - But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
I gotta ask, what "death" did it administrate? And when did this "death" get its beginnings?
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 19:36:28 GMT -5
The first sin committed by Adam, in violation of God's command. Adam was not a covenant breaker since there was no covenant to break. What about Eve? Did she sin? Sorry. Still waiting for you to answer my question first: Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. I answered your question. Since you couldn't read it, I'll make it larger. The first sin committed by Adam, in violation of God's command. Adam was not a covenant breaker since there was no covenant to break. Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=display&thread=764#ixzz1BigYUcHF |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 20, 2011 20:11:42 GMT -5
Sorry. Still waiting for you to answer my question first: Please tell me when you believe the death first began that we need to be redeemed from via the new covenant in Christ. I answered your question. Since you couldn't read it, I'll make it larger. The first sin committed by Adam, in violation of God's command. Adam was not a covenant breaker since there was no covenant to break. Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=display&thread=764#ixzz1BigYUcHF No Tom, You didn't answer my question. Why do you claim there was no covenant to break?Claiming there was no covenant does not make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 20, 2011 20:23:17 GMT -5
No Tom, You didn't answer my question. Why do you claim there was no covenant to break?Claiming there was no covenant does not make it so. I don't like these games we all play from time to time. Lets just be out with it once in a while. So, for example, we have this issue as to whether there was a law at the time of Adam. It seems there was but what law was it? We know Adam broke the law of God that he should not eat of the tree but was there more law than this one for Adam to concern himself with? I don't know but it seems there was - so lets see what others know. What were the laws that were to guide Adam to righteousness? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 20, 2011 23:39:57 GMT -5
No Tom, You didn't answer my question. Why do you claim there was no covenant to break?Claiming there was no covenant does not make it so. Actually, I've been ignoring you. So, I am not going to answer your questions. Besides, I never claimed to answer your question. What you quoted was addressed to mellontes. |
|
