ECT What is the Gospel?

[Nang]

It's no wonder you are SO confused if you think that THAT is the new covenant!

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. ​

THIS is what the new covenant is.

This is a reiteration of the new Covenant of Grace (Gospel).

Just as the Law was originally given in brief form (as far as revealed to us in Scripture), and then constantly reiterated throughout history in more and more detail, so too the new Covenant (Gospel) message.

One Law, One Fall, One Gospel promise . . no changes, but lots of reiteration in Holy Scripture of these events, that provide Christians with much information and doctrinal knowledge.

You guys and your bogus contrived "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are completely out of your minds.

The OLD covenant had not even been established in Genesis 4.

Covenant Theology is legitimate, historical, biblical, and orthodox. It has been around a lot longer than MAD!

The "old Covenant" refers back to God giving Adam commands before the fall. Life through obedience was revealed to Adam through promise, but Adam breached God's covenant. The Mosaic Covenant and the writing of the Law on stones by the finger of God, was a reiteration in more detail, of the first commands given to Adam in the beginning.


The "new Covenant" was the promise of grace through a Seed, who would destroy the devil and rectify through His blood, the sentence of death imposed upon all men. Jesus Christ fulfilled this Covenant through sinless performance of the old under the Law, on behalf and in stead of His spiritual children.

 

[Tambora]

This promise was reiterated by her to her sons,

Show when Eve preached this to Cain and Abel.
Or is this just another of your assumptions?

Abel's lineage was godly as outlined in Genesis 5.

Cain had the same parentage as Abel.

Was Cain given a gospel to believe or not to believe?
What was the gospel given to Cain for him to accept or not accept?

This lineage of godly men (believers)produced Noah,

Noah and family were the only ones allowed on the ark.
That means that ALL other descendants of Adam and Eve alive at the time of the flood were killed in the flood.
Noah had brothers and sisters. If they were so godly, why were they not allowed on the ark?
Surely you do not believe that all of Seth's descendants were godly.

Not to mention that the genealogy of Jesus is not only from godly kings, but wicked ones as well.

 

[Nang]

Show when Eve preached this to Cain and Abel.
Or is this just another of your assumptions?

How can I show you what is not recorded? However, the offerings of the two sons reveal they had been taught about God, about sin, and about the necessity of blood to remit sin.

Cain had the same parentage as Abel.

Was Cain given a gospel to believe or not to believe?
What was the gospel given to Cain for him to accept or not accept?

Abel believed what his mother taught him, but Cain did not. Proving that faith to believe God is not inherent in all human beings. The significance of a blood offering was the result of God giving Abel grace to believe and act in righteousness.

Noah and family were the only ones allowed on the ark.
That means that ALL other descendants of Adam and Eve alive at the time of the flood were killed in the flood.

Correct.

Noah had brothers and sisters. If they were so godly, why were they not allowed on the ark?

What information do you have that Noah's siblings were faithful believers? The godly line are only those named in Genesis 5. It does necessarily mean all siblings within that family were granted grace to believe. Not any more than the example Cain and Abel. Or even Noah's two unbelieving sons! They survived the flood (being sanctified by Noah's standing with God), but sinned greatly after.

Surely you do not believe that all of Seth's descendants were godly.

No, I do not. We can only know for sure which of the lineage received blessings from God, by who is named . . both in Genesis 5 and Hebrews 11.

Not to mention that the genealogy of Jesus is not only from godly kings, but wicked ones as well.

Exactly, which moves the discussion towards the doctrine of Election, does it not?

 

[Right Divider]

This is a reiteration of the new Covenant of Grace (Gospel).

How can this be a "reiteration" of the "new covenant" when the OLD covenant was not even established yet?

You don't even read what scripture says. You have some fairy story that you're always attempting for force the scripture to fit (and it does NOT fit).

Just as the Law was originally given in brief form (as far as revealed to us in Scripture), and then constantly reiterated throughout history in more and more detail, so too the new Covenant (Gospel) message.

One Law, One Fall, One Gospel promise . . no changes, but lots of reiteration in Holy Scripture of these events, that provide Christians with much information and doctrinal knowledge.

You really should be admitted to a mental institution. You need some serious help.

The LAW related to the old and new covenants was ADDED much later and therefore cannot be YOUR alleged "covenant of law" that you say was given to Adam.

Gal 3:17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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.
​

You really should start believing the Word of God instead of trying to rewrite it!

Covenant Theology is legitimate, historical, biblical, and orthodox. It has been around a lot longer than MAD!

So we're back to the old illogical theory that something is true because of its age.

The "old Covenant" refers back to God giving Adam commands before the fall. Life through obedience was revealed to Adam through promise, but Adam breached God's covenant. The Mosaic Covenant and the writing of the Law on stones by the finger of God, was a reiteration in more detail, of the first commands given to Adam in the beginning.

No, it is not and it will never BECOME true just because you keep repeating the LIE ad nauseam!

The "new Covenant" was the promise of grace through a Seed, who would destroy the devil and rectify through His blood, the sentence of death imposed upon all men. Jesus Christ fulfilled this Covenant through sinless performance of the old under the Law, on behalf and in stead of His spiritual children.

Your continued blathering is not going to change what the Bible ACTUALLY says regarding the old and new covenants.

What the BIBLE calls the old covenant was made with Israel and so it the new. God says so and you don't get to change it.

 

[Nang]

How can this be a "reiteration" of the "new covenant" when the OLD covenant was not even established yet?

Do you deny God gave Adam commands to obey (Law) prior to the fall?

This is theologically termed the "Covenant of Works."

The LAW related to the old and new covenants was ADDED much later

"Added" to what?

and therefore cannot be YOUR alleged "covenant of law" that you say was given to Adam.

Gal 3:17 (AKJV/PCE)​

(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.
​

Paul is teaching that the new Covenant was given to Abraham, prior to Law being given to Abraham's later descendants. And reiteration of the old Law to Moses, could not possibly nullify God's grace. Galatians 3:17-22.

So we're back to the old illogical theory that something is true because of its age

It is totally illogical on your part to dismiss the entirety of Holy Scripture and its revelation of historical acts of the saving grace of God throughout.

Your continued blathering is not going to change what the Bible ACTUALLY says regarding the old and new covenants.

What the BIBLE calls the old covenant was made with Israel and so it the new. God says so and you don't get to change it.

There is only one moral Law of God, and it was first revealed in the garden of Eden through God's commands to Adam. Because God is eternal, this Law is eternal. His Holy Standards will always exist, for His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

You are griping about Covenant Theology which you have never studied or been taught. Instead you have been brainwashed with a post-modern and delusional teaching and are blinded by it. If you have the Spirit of God in you, or even a glimmer of love of Truth, you would attempt to at least learn a little about what you rail against and ignorantly deny.

 

[Right Divider]

Do you deny God gave Adam commands to obey (Law) prior to the fall?

God gave Adam commands that God NEVER called "the law".

This is theologically termed the "Covenant of Works."

Oh yes, isn't man-made theology a wonderful thing.

"Added" to what?
Paul is teaching that the new Covenant was given to Abraham, prior to Law being given to Abraham's later descendants. And reiteration of the old Law to Moses, could not possibly nullify God's grace. Galatians 3:17-22.

Read the scripture WITHOUT deciding ahead of time what is "must" mean and you might learn about truth.

Gal 3:16-22 (AKJV/PCE)
(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. (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. (3:18) For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise. (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. (3:20) Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one. (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. (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. ​

The BIBLE says that "THE COVENANT.... THE LAW... WHICH WAS FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS LATER" cannot disannul the PROMISE.

You make such a RIDICULOUS mess of the scripture that I am continually amazed that every time you turn around you say something even more idiotic than the time before!

It is totally illogical on your part to dismiss the entirety of Holy Scripture and its revelation of historical acts of the saving grace of God throughout.

You are the one that is a complete disgrace before God with your turning the scripture on its head!

There is only one moral Law of God, and it was first revealed in the garden of Eden through God's commands to Adam. Because God is eternal, this Law is eternal. His Holy Standards will always exist, for His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

You are griping about Covenant Theology which you have never studied or been taught. Instead you have been brainwashed with a post-modern and delusional teaching and are blinded by it. If you have the Spirit of God in you, or even a glimmer of love of Truth, you would attempt to at least learn a little about what you rail against and ignorantly deny.

Your fairy tale has you spun in a vicious circle of lies.

 

[Tambora]

Exactly, which moves the discussion towards the doctrine of Election, does it not?

It shows that your 'godly seedline' is bunk.

 

[Nang]

It shows that your 'godly seedline' is bunk.

I have never used that term. Where do you find it?

 

[Interplanner]

Tam wrote:

The BIBLE says that "THE COVENANT.... THE LAW... WHICH WAS FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS LATER" cannot disannul the PROMISE.

You make such a RIDICULOUS mess of the scripture that I am continually amazed that every time you turn around you say something even more idiotic than the time before!



Actually Tam, the biggest obstacle to 2P2P is Gal 3:17. There are people there voiding and replacing the Promise (meaning Gen 3 or 12) in favor of Judaism. Guess who was doing that? By failing on this question, 2P2P is useless.

 

[Right Divider]

Tam wrote:

The BIBLE says that "THE COVENANT.... THE LAW... WHICH WAS FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS LATER" cannot disannul the PROMISE.

You make such a RIDICULOUS mess of the scripture that I am continually amazed that every time you turn around you say something even more idiotic than the time before!

Actually Tam, the biggest obstacle to 2P2P is Gal 3:17. There are people there voiding and replacing the Promise (meaning Gen 3 or 12) in favor of Judaism. Guess who was doing that? By failing on this question, 2P2P is useless.

Learn to QUOTE properly you clueless dummy.

I was the one that wrote that and NOT Tambora. http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119927-What-is-the-Gospel&p=4822867&viewfull=1#post4822867

 

[Interplanner]

Learn to QUOTE properly you clueless dummy.

I was the one that wrote that and NOT Tambora. http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119927-What-is-the-Gospel&p=4822867&viewfull=1#post4822867

Stop the insulting you Christ-cursed participant (Mt 5). I don't care how I quote or who said it as long as the proposition is there.

You don't care what the proposition is as long as you can find a whiff of VDL or some other contributor, because you have no answers for 2P2P.

 

[Right Divider]

Stop the insulting you Christ-cursed participant (Mt 5). I don't care how I quote or who said it as long as the proposition is there.

Indeed, your etiquette here on TOL is as sloppy and confused as your bogus "theology".

You don't care what the proposition is as long as you can find a whiff of VDL or some other contributor, because you have no answers for 2P2P.

You're in the wrong plan. Some of us know what garbage you're shoveling. Go somewhere else if you want to try to fool someone.

 

[Interplanner]

Indeed, your etiquette here on TOL is as sloppy and confused as your bogus "theology".


You're in the wrong plan. Some of us know what garbage you're shoveling. Go somewhere else if you want to try to fool someone.

Forget that; I'm here to stop 2P2P because it is a fraud and it is virtual Judaism. See you all year.

It's just foolish to 'demand' people leave, like our college students asking for 'safe zones'. Your arguments are rot and you should abandone them. They are not how the NT is put together.

 

[Right Divider]

Forget that; I'm here to stop 2P2P because it is a fraud and it is virtual Judaism. See you all year.

So we're in for another whole of your lies and confusion. Oh joy.

It's just foolish to 'demand' people leave, like our college students asking for 'safe zones'.

Then consider it a suggestion to save you from further embarrassment.

Your arguments are rot and you should abandone them. They are not how the NT is put together.

You've consistently proven that I understand the scripture and you don't.

Your pompous, pretentious cancelationist VanderLaanian babbling is just that; vain babbling.

 

[Interplanner]

Do you have a specific passage to discuss or are you just here to congratulate yourself?

 

[Right Divider]

Do you have a specific passage to discuss or are you just here to congratulate yourself?

Please free to point out the SPECIFIC TEXT where you think that I am congratulating myself.

 

[Interplanner]

You congratulate yourself all the time on your victory understanding built on 2P2P. So when 'saved' in Romans is not about a Davidic theocracy you go to Lk 1 because you think a Davidic theocracy is there. It is not. It is another fail. But you congratulate yourself nonetheless on being so know the bible so well.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Rather than talking around the problem or attacking each other, can we just cut to the chase?

Here is the gospel which was preached by the Twelve:

"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where" (Lk.9:6).​

They certainly were not preaching the same gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles, the gospel which is centered on the fact that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor.15:1-4), since the Twelve did not even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).

Things which are different cannot be the same!

 

[steko]

Forget that; I'm here to stop 2P2P because it is a fraud and it is virtual Judaism. See you all year.

What's you success rate in stopping it?

I haven't seen that you've succeeded in bringing anyone over to your view on TOL.

 

[Interplanner]

Here is the gospel which was preached by the Twelve:

"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where" (Lk.9:6).​

They certainly were not preaching the same gospel which Paul preached to the Gentiles, the gospel which is centered on the fact that Christ died for our sins (1 Cor.15:1-4), since the Twelve did not even know that the Lord Jesus was going to die (Lk.18:33-34).

Things which are different cannot be the same!

They knew and resisted it.