Mid Acts Disponsationalism

[Nick M]

However? However?! That's the guy in the white shirt and black tie in the video you just shared writing "however."

No, it is the gospel of circumcision. You don't believe the red letters?

 

[Doormat]

No, it is the gospel of circumcision.

What is the difference between the gospel of circumcision you see and keeping the Mosaic Law (old covenant)? It's an important question. I don't see how I could possibly understand where you are coming from without you briefly explaining the distinction you see, if you see one at all.

You don't believe the red letters?

I do believe what Jesus said, if that's what you're asking, brother. What's your point? Show me the scripture(s) you are thinking of.

 

[swanca99]

No - I think folks on this board usually refer to guys like me as "Acts 2 Dispensationalists."

 

[Bright Raven]

There are many forms of Acts dispensationalism of which two are Acts 2 and Acts 9(MAD). Maybe you are Acts 2, don't know.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz said everything in the video. He is the guy in the white shirt and black tie. The only thing he didn't say is when I mocked him at the end about his personal demon controlling him.

Cliches

Hilarious!

 

[godrulz]

By no works of the law will anybody be justified. However, that doesn't undo the perpetual covenant with Israel whereby they will keep the law, or they will not be justified.

Why would they have to keep the law knowing this was impossible? Why would this group be alongside another post-cross group (circ vs uncirc) who have a grace vs law card despite there being one Christ, one cross, a need for a gospel of grace? Romans and Hebrews shows the impossibility of being justified by law/works, even in the Old Testament? How much more is this unnecessary and impossible post-cross?! You are confusing issues of national Israel and her restoration with individual salvation of Jew/Gentile one in Christ post-cross, pre-Paul.

 

[Doormat]

Thank you for editing your post.

What, in your mind, is the precise scriptural relationship between the two, and where is that relationship presented in the pages of extant scripture?

God gave Abraham a reward. The reward was God Himself (Gen 15:1 KJV). Abraham wondered how he would pass this reward on since he had no children (Gen 15:2-3). God promised Abraham children to inherit the Holy Spirit (Gen 15:4-5). Abraham believed God (Gen 15:6). That is the promise Paul was writing about in Galatians 3:14. The new covenant is the fulfilment of the promise (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Eze 37:14; Joel 2:28-29). For Jeremiah 31:31-34 to be accomplished in a person (conversion), it requires receiving the Holy Spirit.

After the Israelites were baptized in the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:2-4) we see from their song that they had an expectation to dwell with God in temple made with His hands (Ex 15:17). No doubt this expectation was based on the promise God made to their father Abraham, but they could not see themselves as temples of the Holy Spirit (like 1 Cor 6:19) because of their hard hearts. Following their idolatry, they made a burdensome contract (the old covenant) with God (Deut 6:29). Note that it was not God's first intention to do this (Jeremiah 7:22). God used this covenant with its typology to teach them and lead them to the promise made to Abraham (Gal 3:17), to eventually lead them to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

The one that is new is actually older than the one that is old, i.e. the new covenant fulfils the promises made to Abraham BEFORE the law of Moses, and it abrogates the old covenant.

No ....

Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Gal 3:14 is about faith, not the new covenant.

Please read the surrounding verses carefully. In context, Galatians 3:14 is clearly about the promise made to Abraham, that we would receive the Holy Spirit, becoming temples of God.

God did not make his covenants with the "Kingdom" but with the houses of Israel and Judah. But *this* is the covenant that he made with them:

I agree, but believe that Israel/Olive Tree is Christ (See post #45 on this thread and Jer 11:16 cf. Ro 11:17). My question you responded to was asked in response to VegasCowboy's question about a Kingdom covenant. If he believes there was/is a "Kingdom covenant," I would like to know what he thinks it is.

Perhaps I can show you from scripture that it was already fulfilled in Christ. I believe I can.

Please do.

Luke 22:20 NASB And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

That, and everything I explained above should suffice. Is it not clear?

 

[Doormat]

By no works of the law will anybody be justified. However, that doesn't undo the perpetual covenant with Israel whereby they will keep the law, or they will not be justified.

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Change. See?

 

[Doormat]

Do you have a response to this post you either missed or ignored, godrulz?

I believe what the Bible says. It says Israel was put away, and gentiles raised up through Paul's unique ministry.

This is not unique to MAD and is the gist of Acts 2 disp (my view) also.

Romans 11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL."

In Paul's own words. God preserved Israel as a remnant; He did not "put away" Israel.

 

[Doormat]

Brother WoundedEgo,

I meant compare Jer 11:16 with Ro 11:17. I wrote Jer 3:16 by mistake, and have edited my post. Sorry for any confusion on that point.

 

[Doormat]

Perhaps I can show you from scripture that it was already fulfilled in Christ. I believe I can.

Please do.

Adding to my previous comments, I'd like to point out Romans 2:14-15.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

When Paul states "do by nature the things contained in the law," it is equivalent to what Jesus taught in Matthew 7:12, and what Paul taught in Galatians 5:14 and Romans 13:9.

When Paul states "having not the law" it is equivalent to [the Righteousness of God] without the law.

When Paul states "the law written in their hearts" it is equivalent to the fulfillment of the new covenant: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." Jeremiah 31:33.

My question for you is: Is Romans 2:14-15 true about you? If not, why?

 

[WoundedEgo]

Thank you for editing your post.

No problem.

God gave Abraham a reward. The reward was God Himself (Gen 15:1 KJV). Abraham wondered how he would pass this reward on since he had no children (Gen 15:2-3). God promised Abraham children to inherit the Holy Spirit (Gen 15:4-5).

There is no mention of "the Holy Spirit" in the text, and "Spirit" is a bogus word, as is the notion of a name, or title, "the Holy Spirit". But I'm glad that you are attempting to defend your position with scriptural assertions. But when you make these leaps, where you assert something and "prove" your words by associating them with an unrelated verse or citation, you lose all credibility and come off as simply devious. Couching your own thoughts in between two scriptures references does not constitute a "study" but rather a mockery of one. Please refrain from that practice. Thank you.

Abraham believed God (Gen 15:6). That is the promise Paul was writing about in Galatians 3:14.

Actually, Galatians 3:14 is referring to is not related to covenant but was a reward for his obedience in the matter of the binding and offering his only son, Isaac:

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Gen 22:15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

The words "the promise" had come to have a fixed meaning:

Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
Heb 6:14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
Heb 6:15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So, you have begun your journey on the wrong foot, in the wrong direction, so there is zero hope that you will arrive at the correct conclusions.

The new covenant is the fulfilment of the promise (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Eze 37:14; Joel 2:28-29). For Jeremiah 31:31-34 to be accomplished in a person (conversion), it requires receiving the Holy Spirit.

I have already shown that "the promise" of "the blessing" was unrelated to any covenant, and does not require any new covenant to be fulfilled. It does not come by covenant but *promise* and the promise comes by faith upon all who believe, both Jew and gentile:

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

After the Israelites were baptized in the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:2-4) we see from their song that they had an expectation to dwell with God in temple made with His hands (Ex 15:17).

Actually, I believe that they considered the promised land to *be* a sanctuary for God to dwell in, prepared by God for them, and he had done so with *his* hands. Here, read it:

Exo 15:17 Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.

The LXX has it like this:

Exo 15:17 Bring them in and plant them in the mountain of their inheritance, in thy prepared habitation, which thou, O Lord, hast prepared; the sanctuary, O Lord, which thine hands have made ready.

This, we are told, will be fulfilled when the new Jerusalem descends from the sky to the middle east and the dwelling place of God is forever set up in a walled city, "the holy city" in the promised land.

No doubt this expectation was based on the promise God made to their father Abraham, but they could not see themselves as temples of the Holy Spirit (like 1 Cor 6:19) because of their hard hearts.

In the song, they got it right. The mistake is not theirs but all yours.

Following their idolatry, they made a burdensome contract (the old covenant) with God (Deut 6:29). Note that it was not God's first intention to do this (Jeremiah 7:22). God used this covenant with its typology to teach them and lead them to the promise made to Abraham (Gal 3:17), to eventually lead them to Christ (Galatians 3:24).

So says Paul. Kudos.

Galatians 3:17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

Please read the surrounding verses carefully. In context, Galatians 3:14 is clearly about the promise made to Abraham, that we would receive the Holy Spirit, becoming temples of God.

As I said, having started out on the wrong foot...

I agree, but believe that Israel/Olive Tree is Christ (See post #45 on this thread and Jer 3:16 cf. Ro 11:17).

No, the root of the olive tree is Abraham, while the natural branches are the Jews and the wild branches, grafted in, are the gentiles. The natural branches, or at least all in the future, will be grafted *back* in.

Jesus, on the other hand, as the *vine* is a completely different metaphor, relating to Isaiah 5.

My question you responded to was asked in response to VegasCowboy's question about a Kingdom covenant. If he believes there was/is a "Kingdom covenant," I would like to know what he thinks it is.

Oh, thanks the clarification.

Luke 22:20 NASB And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

This indeed refers to the new covenant. It is something completely independent of the promise of the blessing to Abraham and his seed which comes by promise by faith, not by covenant.

That, and everything I explained above should suffice. Is it not clear?

I have shown, point by point, that your explanation is completely incorrect. Sorry to pop your bubble.

 

[WoundedEgo]

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Change. See?

I'm not sure how you understand "change" so I thought I should clarify...

The point is not that the law would be *altered* (that would be impossible) but rather that there would be a *different law applicable*... in other words, it is about a change of applicable law. The law of Moses only applied to the Aaronic/Levitic priesthood, not to the Melchizedechian one.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[WoundedEgo]

Brother WoundedEgo,

I meant compare Jer 11:16 with Ro 11:17. I wrote Jer 3:16 by mistake, and have edited my post. Sorry for any confusion on that point.

Okay, thanks.

 

[WoundedEgo]

When Paul states "the law written in their hearts" it is equivalent to the fulfillment of the new covenant: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts." Jeremiah 31:33.

My question for you is: Is Romans 2:14-15 true about you? If not, why?

Romans 2:14-15 is referring to their natural ability, general revelation and conscience. If we take it as the work of the holy breath, received by faith through the gospel, still there is no appeal whatsoever to conscience because the promise came with no reference to covenant:

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

 

[Jacob]

Do you believe in MAD. Please participate in the poll

I don't know.

I wonder if "two-gospels" is a part of MAD. I understand MAD to stand for Mid Acts Dispensationalism, which I don't understand. I'm not sure if we are to say, if we should agree with MAD, that only Gentiles in Paul are saved or that perhaps salvation can only be had through Paul, whether Jew or Greek.

My concerns here about Israel still being a part of God's plan, including Gentile participation in at least aspects of the Law, can be represented by presenting the following verses in my post.

I believe God has a plan for Israel. Where we fit in and what we do with the Law are important in this I believe. And of course, what we do with Jesus.

Nehemiah 1:9 (NASB), Jeremiah 31:8 (NASB), Ezekiel 34:13 (NASB), Ezekiel 37:21 (NASB), Ezekiel 39:27 (NASB), Zechariah 10:10 (NASB).

These verses are about non-Israelites celebrating the feast of tabernacles (feast of booths), or else suffering the consequences (no rain).
Zechariah 14:16 (NASB), Zechariah 14:18 (NASB), Zechariah 14:19 (NASB).

 

[Doormat]

There is no mention of "the Holy Spirit" in the text,

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

If God states He is your reward, and God is Spirit, then logically the reward is the Spirit. Confirmed by Galatians 3:14.

Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The blessing God gave Abraham is clearly described by Paul.

...and "Spirit" is a bogus word, as is the notion of a name, or title, "the Holy Spirit".

You will have to prove that.

But I'm glad that you are attempting to defend your position with scriptural assertions.

No you are not glad, brother. You tell me below to not do it, claim I lose all credibility by doing it, and claim I come off as devious. Therefore, you appear double-minded (James 1:8).

But when you make these leaps, where you assert something and "prove" your words by associating them with an unrelated verse or citation, you lose all credibility and come off as simply devious. Couching your own thoughts in between two scriptures references does not constitute a "study" but rather a mockery of one. Please refrain from that practice. Thank you.

Your hostility is unwarranted; your accusations are false; and your counsel is unwelcome.

Actually, Galatians 3:14 is referring to is not related to covenant but was a reward for his obedience in the matter of the binding and offering his only son, Isaac:

You haven't proved your claim, which is contrary to the blatantly obvious context:

Galatians 3:13-17 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

The words "the promise" had come to have a fixed meaning:

Conjecture. "In thee shall all nations be blessed," does not mean something different than what Paul described in Galatians 3:14.

I have already shown that "the promise" of "the blessing" was unrelated to any covenant, and does not require any new covenant to be fulfilled.

You haven't shown that. But I have shown you Galatians 3:13-17, the context of which you seem content to ignore ... or twist (2 Peter 3:16).

It does not come by covenant but *promise* ...

Non sequitur. A covenant is a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action, and you haven't proved that fact wrong. But if you will not believe Galatians 3:13-17 where Paul calls the promise made to Abraham a covenant, and you will not believe the English language definition of covenant, I don't think you will believe me regardless what I say or do.

Actually, I believe that they considered the promised land to *be* a sanctuary for God to dwell in, prepared by God for them, and he had done so with *his* hands.

Mark 14:58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

The LXX has it like this:

So? It means the same thing: temple made without hands.

This, we are told, will be fulfilled when the new Jerusalem descends from the sky to the middle east and the dwelling place of God is forever set up in a walled city, "the holy city" in the promised land.

Who are we told by that Exodus 15:17 is fulfilled when new Jerusalem descends? That is merely your conjecture, once again.

In the song, they got it right. The mistake is not theirs but all yours.

I never said they didn't get it right in the song. They sang of a temple made without hands. All the earthly temples were built with their (human) hands. Christ claimed to be the temple made without hands. Paul said we are the same temple in Christ. You have not shown me any mistake I've allegedly made. This is getting silly, brother.

As I said, having started out on the wrong foot...

Said, but haven't proved ... at all.

No, the root of the olive tree is Abraham, while the natural branches are the Jews and the wild branches, grafted in, are the gentiles. The natural branches, or at least all in the future, will be grafted *back* in.

So you basically have made the same claim I did, but are unable to see it. Too bad. Nevertheless, you offered no scripture to prove Abraham is the Olive Tree, or any scriptural argument to prove Abraham is the Olive Tree. And you ignored Jeremiah 11:16 where God defines the Olive Tree, the scripture that Paul was clearly referencing when he spoke.

Jesus, on the other hand, as the *vine* is a completely different metaphor, relating to Isaiah 5.

So? What's your point, and how does it relate to my point regarding Jeremiah 11:16 compared to Romans 11:17?

This indeed refers to the new covenant. It is something completely independent of the promise of the blessing to Abraham and his seed which comes by promise by faith, not by covenant.

Conjecture, again. You haven't proved that.

I have shown, point by point, that your explanation is completely incorrect.

No, you really haven't at all. Not even a little.

Sorry to pop your bubble.

You are quite puffed up with your knowledge. Too bad.

 

[Doormat]

Romans 2:14-15 is referring to their natural ability, general revelation and conscience. If we take it as the work of the holy breath, received by faith through the gospel, still there is no appeal whatsoever to conscience because the promise came with no reference to covenant:

Romans 2:14-15 doesn't say that. You are adding to the text. And you have neither addressed my points regarding the verses nor answered my question.

 

[Doormat]

Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

I'm not sure how you understand "change" so I thought I should clarify...

The point is not that the law would be *altered* (that would be impossible)

Colossians 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Deuteronomy 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

but rather that there would be a *different law applicable*... in other words,

You mean in you words, because that is what you are offering by claiming a "change in the law" means a "different law applicable."

it is about a change of applicable law.

Why do you keep making claims without proof?

The law of Moses only applied to the Aaronic/Levitic priesthood, not to the Melchizedechian one.

I hope this is helpful.

It's not helpful at all. You appear to be making this stuff up, frankly. You don't even tell me what the alleged applicable law is for the "Melchizedechian one."

 

[WoundedEgo]

...If God states He is your reward, and God is Spirit, then logically the reward is the Spirit. Confirmed by Galatians 3:14.

When your conclusion does not follow from your premises, that is a logical fallacy called "a non sequitur". That's what you have provided.

First of all, God stated (assuming for the moment the correctness of the translation) that he was *Abram's* reward, not yours. When did God say that he was your reward or that of the nations?

Second of all, there is nothing in the context to associate his being his own breath (the correct translation of RUACH/PNEUMA), so there is no reason at all that he should presume that it was not a reference to YHVH himself.

And thirdly, this was not a promise, nor a blessing but an assertion: "I am", not "you shall be" or "I will send".

And the statement "I am your great reward", as Paul points out, occurs *prior* to the covenant, and it is on this basis that it can be passed on to the uncircumcised!:

Rom 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Now, it is unreasonable and unnecessary for me to readdress the rest of your post because I have established over and over that your first step is on the wrong foot and in the wrong direction, so the rest is as well.

Below is a list of all occurrences of the phrase "the promise" in the KJV:

Luk_24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Act_1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act_2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act_2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act_7:17 But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt,
Act_13:32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
Act_26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
Rom_4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom_4:14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom_4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom_4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
Rom_9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Gal_3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal_3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal_3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Gal_3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal_3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
2Ti_1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
Heb_6:15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
Heb_9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb_10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Heb_11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
2Pe_3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
1Jn_2:25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

Cheers.