Right Divider
Body part
Neither the old covenant nor the new covenant are "according to promise".
The covenant referred to in Gal 3:8-9 is the one in Genesis 17 and not the one in Exodus 19.
ECT The Broken Record of MAD
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
The covenant referred to in Gal 3:8-9 is the one in Genesis 17 and not the one in Exodus 19.
Paul did indeed teach on the gospel of the kingdom that was prophesied by the prophets (ie. not hidden).
The things that differ are Paul's teaching on the gospel of grace that was not prophesied by the prophets (ie. hidden).
MADists don't hold to Covenant theology. It's a key difference of them from traditional churches- MADists just take the mere word and brand their heterodoxy with it whenever it's brought up
Right Divider
Body part
:chuckle:MADists don't hold to Covenant theology. It's a key difference of them from traditional churches- MADists just take the mere word and brand their heterodoxy with it whenever it's brought up
dodge
New member
OT & NT it really isn't that hard unless of course you want to change God's word, which Madist seem to have no problem doing.
Bottom line: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise."
If you belong to Christ, the King of Israel, then you are a citizen of the Israel of God.
Covenant theology is a Calvinist conceptual overview and interpretive framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible. It uses the theological concept of a covenant as an organizing principle for Christian theology.
Covenantal theology is a Roman Catholic approach to biblical theology, emphasizing a return or recovery of the Patristic model of scriptural interpretation. It employs a covenant-centric structural framework to interpret and understand the whole of scripture and thus salvation history.
MADism does not use a covenant theology by it's very nature, as it splits the Bible, it's history, and it's adherents.
It is not universal.
Covenantal theology is a Roman Catholic approach to biblical theology, emphasizing a return or recovery of the Patristic model of scriptural interpretation. It employs a covenant-centric structural framework to interpret and understand the whole of scripture and thus salvation history.
MADism does not use a covenant theology by it's very nature, as it splits the Bible, it's history, and it's adherents.
It is not universal.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Only one gospel.
The gospel.
In Galatians 3:8-9 NET Paul instructed the congregation by saying, "The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the gospel to Abraham ahead of time, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.'
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Hebrews 6:13
For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
Hebrews 6:16
For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
If you're gonna end all strife with this statement, I'm all ears.
False dichotomy.
Just as Abraham was the father of us all, not just Israel [those of the law] but also those of faith God is the Father of us all and not just Israel alone.
Then why the accusation?
- What teachings of Paul are we ignoring?
- There is a difference between what Jesus and the 12 preached before the cross and what He sent them to preach after His ascension.
- Do you like being wrong, because you do it here every day.
Is it a covenant? Where does the Bible say it is?
False dichotomy.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Paul wrote to those who knew the law.
He never called them those of the law.
Yes it's a covenant of promise.
It's the law that was not a covenant of promise.
Ephesians 2:19
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Paul wasn't writing to those of the law.
Those of the law are not Israel.
He never called those he was writing to: "those of the law."
Does this help clear up what I said?
Already gave it to Right Divider.
Never said it wasn't, are you even reading the thread?
Faith does.
Agreed.
Then who are they?
Agreed.
I suppose.
Where? I don't generally read posts addressed to people other than myself.
I was trying to indicate that the "of promise" was irrelevant to the issue at hand; which is whether or not the gospel of grace is a covenant.
Scripture?Faith does.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Paul didn't elaborate.
Romans 9:6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Except that they could get back in...
Romans 11:24
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Right above your last post to Jamie.
If you had been reading the thread you would realize that that is not the issue at hand.
Scripture?
Jamie already gave it to you.
1Head just rolled out of bed !! :rotfl:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Who told you?
Did Paul teach the kingdom of God? Some say no, do you?
He likes to "Dodge" the truth.