New Covenant Theology Forum
Welcome to the New Covenant Theology forum. Feel free to post a message regarding New Covenant Theology, Housing, Iraq or any subject that is on your conscience .
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 14) |
| Author | Comment This topic is sticky |
Gary Anderson
 IP: 24.205.208.175 Jul 28, 05 - 1:53 PM |
Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Welcome, we will try to muddle through this as a means of discussion of issues important to you, so that we can learn together. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 24.176.178.247 Aug 1st, 2005 - 1:29 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
A quote from Cliff Bjork of Searching Together: "I think you should also be more careful in dredging up and demeaning the names of God's servants from centuries past....there are enough real enemies of the faith to battle without attacking other believers who served God with the light they had. " I have no problem, Cliff, in dredging up and demeaning those who espouse covenant theology and those who advocated law preaching. And you know why? Because they don't understand grace. Now I can understand a young Christian maybe falling into covenant theology or dispensationalism for a time, but I cannot excuse, and God will not excuse those who used covenant theology to mislead thousands of deceived persons and governments. John Bunyan was aweful, and his theology was aweful, and I would not fellowship with him for a moment! Charles Spurgeon, that supposed peaceful guy did the same as John Owen did in Cromwell's time. That is Spurgeon defended the murderous Cromwell. It is clear to me Cliff, that you and John Zens have not come outside the camp to suffer with the saints when you refuse to call a spade a spade. Spurgeon and Owen and Bunyan were pillars of the false orthodoxy of their times. And sorry, Cliff, the 1646 London confession gave them light, they just refused to follow it! Charles Spurgeon had people go around his assembly while he preached the law looking for those who were distressed by his message. He used those men to add people to his congregation in a totally false operation that had nothing whatsoever to do with Acts chapter 2. Now Cliff, I have known that Jon Zens has refused to criticise these guys as being false teachers for 30 years. NOTHING has changed Cliff. Don't be so certain that your position is permitting you to suffer persecution outside the camp because in reality it is keeping you safely inside the camp of apostate religion. You understand the truth Cliff. All you have to do is do something about it. But I have waited 30 years Cliff, for Jon to do that very thing. How much longer do I have to wait? I give up. I emailed Jon the same. What is the point of waiting any longer? This is the bottom line Cliff, the gospel and all these precious truths that Jon Zens has gleaned from his brilliant studies and by use of a brilliant mind have always been a sort of hobby. What I mean is that when push comes to shove, Jon has never intended to separate from Christendom. He has always been about reforming the system rather than repudiating the system. If you guys do not have the strenght of gospel power inside to use what you know to condemn false religion, then I must assume you only know these things intellectually and not from the heart. If you knew them from the heart you would flee the Spurgeons and the Reisingers (John) of the world. But you don't. If you think writing this letter makes me happy you are off your rocker. I am distressed in ways you cannot understand. But write it I must. Gary |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 24.205.211.21 Aug 3rd, 2005 - 8:32 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
I want everyone to know that I believe what I am writing here, but I am willing to look at what Jon published in searching Together magazine in 2001. I may critique it in light of what I have posted here. It is time the elect had the faith delivered to the saints as Jude once said. I don't see this faith being evidenced by the leaders of searchingtogether.org. at least as of this writing. |
|
Gary The Crusader Is NOT Gary Anderson
IP: 205.188.116.5 Apr 16th, 2007 - 12:38 PM |
Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Has God, ever made a old or new covenant with the gentiles? 
|
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 16th, 2007 - 2:00 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
The New Covenant makes one new man, from Jews and Gentiles per Paul. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Jun 29th, 2007 - 11:36 AM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Here is my view of how Romans 11 applies to "Jews." I posted this at bernardgoldberg.com Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, is that moderator language? It depends on how you look at the Jews. Are you looking at a people? At a religion? At a community? Most of the people at jewcy.com think that Zionism has hurt the image of Jews. Now, I counter some of them by saying that the Jews are looked upon by Paul in Romans 11 as "a people". However, the descendents of this "people", are fragmented, some are only a few percentage points Jewish, some are half, like me. Some have fathers who are Jewish and thus cannot migrate to Israel (as if I wanted to.) Some have mothers who are Jewish. Some are converts to Judaism. I believe that many have varying definitions about who is a Jew. I would not be a Jew if defined by Ezra and if the Old Testament were still in force. But I am a descendent of the nation of Israel or my parents were converts at some time in history to Judaism, or both. It gets complex, but Paul said that he put no stock in endless geneologies. Therefore, I believe the umbrella that defines Jews for the purposes of Romans chapter 11 is very wide. It is dependent upon the power of God, not on an endless geneology. _________________ Gary Anderson |
|
Jim
IP: 71.100.232.252 Aug 17th, 2007 - 1:20 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
I read your "doctrine" section of your web site. I disagree that the Ekklhsia replaces Israel. I think that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant, and that the Ekklhsia IS the part of Israel that accepts the New Covenant by believing in Christ. Once the fullness of the Gentiles has entered into this believing (New Covenant) part of Israel (the Ekklhsia), then the unbelieving (Old Covenant) part of Israel will likewise believe in Him and will likewise enter into the believing (New Covenant) part of Israel (the Ekklhsia), at which point all Israel (both parts) will have been saved (will have believed in Christ). This will complete Israel's transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, at which point there will be one covenant (the New Covenant) and one Israel (New Covenant Israel / the Ekklhsia), that is, the saints, both Greek and Jew. Until then, there are two covenants (the Old Covenant and the New Covenant) and two parts of Israel, and thus two Israels (unbelieving [Old Covenant] Israel [the Jews (non-saints)] and believing [New Covenant] Israel [the saints, both Greek and Jew]). This split in Israel into two parts occurred at the cross, when Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, shed the Blood of the New Covenant, thus removing sin, and thus initiating God's New Covenant with the house of Israel, as predicted by Jeremiah, only part of Israel accepting the New Covenant by believing in Christ, the other part of Israel choosing to continue to try to reach God in the Old Covenant through the law of Moses. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Aug 18th, 2007 - 9:36 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Well, Jim, I believe that the Jews who do not believe after the death and resurrection of Christ attempt to live by the law of Moses. However, Christ is both the fulfillment and the abrogation of the law. Therefore the attempt to establish righteousness through the Old Covenant and its works is futile. Scripture says there is one olive tree. The elect are a part of that olive tree from the beginning of faith, even before Abraham. Therefore, the gentiles were grafted on this olive tree, and the Jews were hardened. But with the fullness of the Gentiles the Jews who are elect will be grafted in again. But the Old Covenant law of Moses has no authority post Christ's resurrection, and the end of it was 70 ad. Does this agree with what you are saying? |
|
Jim
IP: 71.100.232.252 Aug 19th, 2007 - 5:30 AM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Hi Gary, Gary: Well, Jim, I believe that the Jews who do not believe after the death and resurrection of Christ attempt to live by the law of Moses. However, Christ is both the fulfillment and the abrogation of the law. Therefore the attempt to establish righteousness through the Old Covenant and its works is futile. Jim: I agree. As stated in Hebrews 9:11-18, the New Covenant, identified in 8:6-13 and in 10:14-23 as the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah, had already been initiated by Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, by the shedding of His Blood of the New Covenant, which He did for us, the saints, the called ones, the ones who believe in Him. The verb applied to the Better Covenant in 8:6 is perfect indicative (expressing what has already happened). It’s the same verb applied to the people (the Jews) in 7:11. Just as the people (the Jews) had already been established by law under the Levitical Priesthood in the Old Covenant in 7:11, likewise the Better Covenant had already been established by law in 8:6 under Christ. The thing being made old and becoming obsolete (the Old Covenant)—these substantival (functioning as nouns) present participles in 8:13 refer to actions that have already occurred, just as the substantival (functioning as a noun) present participle “the one coming down out of heaven” in John 6:33 refers to an action that has already occurred—had already been replaced by the New Covenant. As stated in 10:9-10, when He comes into the world, He takes away the first thing (animal sacrifice, and thus the Old Covenant), so that the second thing (His true Sacrifice, and thus the New Covenant) would stand. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:10-14, the thing that had been made glorious (the Old Covenant) has not been made glorious (perfective indicative, expressing what has already happened) in this respect, because of the surpassing glory (of the New Covenant) (3:10), the glory of thing that remains (the New Covenant) being greater than the glory of the thing that is done away (the Old Covenant) (3:11). If the New Covenant is the thing that remains, and if the Old Covenant is the thing that is done away, then the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. Paul says in 3:14 that the veil of blindness prevents the Jews (non-saints) from seeing that it (the thing that is done away [the Old Covenant]) is done away in Christ. Although the Old Covenant had already been replaced by the New Covenant in God’s eyes, it continued to be practiced (in futility, as you say) by Jewish unbelievers. Therefore, as stated in Hebrews 8:13, the thing which is made old and which becomes obsolete (the Old Covenant) is near disappearance. It hasn’t yet disappeared, because Jewish unbelievers continue to practice it (in futility). Gary: Scripture says there is one olive tree. The elect are a part of that olive tree from the beginning of faith, even before Abraham. Therefore, the gentiles were grafted on this olive tree, and the Jews were hardened. But with the fullness of the Gentiles the Jews who are elect will be grafted in again. Jim: I disagree. The belief in view in Romans 11:16-24 / 11:25-27 is specifically belief in Christ, which did not become an issue until the New Covenant was initiated at the cross. It was when God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel was initiated at the cross, as predicted by Jeremiah, by the shedding of the Blood of the New Covenant that belief in Christ became an issue. This (the cross) was the point as which Christ became the Root of the tree (Israel), which correlates with Christ becoming the Cornerstone of the building (Israel) in Matthew 21:42-43. The cross was the point at which the building/tree (Israel) became a New Covenant building/tree (New Covenant Israel [the Ekklhsia]). Thus, this (the cross) was the point at which the part of the building/tree (Israel) that did not believe in Him was excluded from the part of the building/tree (Israel) that believed in Him (the Ekklhsia), resulting in the building/tree (Israel) being split into two parts (at the cross), and thus into two Israels, one believing and the other not believing. Then the Gentiles believed in Him and entered into the part of the building/tree (Israel) that believed in Him (the Ekklhsia). Afterward, the part of the building/tree (Israel) which had not believed in Him, and which had therefore been excluded from the part of the building/tree (Israel) that believed in Him (the Ekklhsia), would likewise believe in Him and would likewise enter into the part of the building/tree (Israel) that believes in Him (New Covenant Israel [the Ekklhsia]). Gary: But the Old Covenant law of Moses has no authority post Christ's resurrection, and the end of it was 70 ad. Does this agree with what you are saying? Jim: Basically, yes, except I think that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant at the cross, when the Blood of the New Covenant was shed. In Ephesians 2:14-16, Paul identifies the cross as the point at which everything changes, the law, which divided Gentile from Jew in the Old Covenant, being done away (the end of the Old Covenant), and Gentile and Jew being created into one new man in Christ, the both being reconciled in one body (the saints, both Greek and Jew, are one body in Christ) to God through the cross. However, unbelieving Jews continued to practice the Old Covenant (in futility) until 70AD, when that which had been near disappearance—it had already been replaced (in God’s eyes), but it had not yet disappeared (in man’s eyes)—finally disappeared (even in man’s eyes). Even though many Jewish unbelievers continue to practice aspects of the Old Covenant, one cannot say that the Old Covenant continued to be practiced after 70AD, in that animal sacrifice ceased in 70AD. Jim |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Aug 19th, 2007 - 8:05 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Ok Jim, you are basically saying that the olive tree is the New Covenant. Is that correct? Certainly, in a sense divorced from history, faith and the gospel have existed since Abel was called. Faith preceded circumcision regarding Abraham, and faith was what Job had when he proclaimed that he knew the redeemer lives. But specifically the olive tree is just new covenant, according to your interpretation? I don't agree with that, but I am open to debate. |
|
Jim
IP: 71.100.232.252 Aug 19th, 2007 - 9:50 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Hi Gary, Gary: Ok Jim, you are basically saying that the olive tree is the New Covenant. Is that correct? Jim: No. I’m saying that Israel in Romans 11:25-27 is analogized as the cultivated olive tree in 11:16-24. Part of the tree / Israel does not believe in Christ until the Gentiles enter into the part of the tree / Israel that believes in Him. The tree / Israel in 11:16-24 / 11:25-27 split into two parts at the cross, when Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant, shed the Blood of the New Covenant, thus removing sin, and thus initiating God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel, as predicted by Jeremiah. Only part of the tree / Israel accepted God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel by believing in Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant. The other part of the tree / Israel refused the New Covenant by not believing in Christ. The part of the tree that believes in Christ in 11:16-24 is the part of Israel that believes in Christ in 11:25-27; and the part of the tree that does not believe in Christ (the unbelieving natural branches), and which is therefore separated from the part of the tree that believes in Him, in 11:16-24 is the part of Israel that does not believe in Christ, and which is therefore separated from the part of Israel that believes in Him, in 11:25-27; and just as the Gentiles are now entering into the part of the tree that believes in Christ in 11:16-24, likewise the Gentiles are now entering into the part of Israel that believes in Christ in 11:25-27; and just as the unbelieving/excluded part of the tree will subsequently believe in Christ and enter into the part of the tree that believes in Him, likewise the unbelieving part of Israel will subsequently believe in Christ and enter into the part of Israel that believes in Him. Once that has occurred, then all Israel (both parts of the tree, both parts of Israel) will have been saved, as stated in 11:26. Gary: Certainly, in a sense divorced from history, faith and the gospel have existed since Abel was called. Faith preceded circumcision regarding Abraham, and faith was what Job had when he proclaimed that he knew the redeemer lives. Jim: What Paul is describing in Romans 11:16-24 / 11:25-27 did not exist until the cross, when belief in Christ became an issue as a result of Christ initiating God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel by shedding the Blood of the New Covenant on the cross. The tree (11:16-24) / Israel (11:25-27) did not split into two parts, a believing part and an unbelieving part, until the cross. That was when part of Israel believed in Christ and thus accepted God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel, and that was when the other part of Israel did not believe in Christ and thus refused God’s New Covenant with the house of Israel. Shortly after, the Gentiles believed in Christ and entered into the part of Israel that believed in Him. There is nothing that Paul describes in Romans 11:16-24 / 11:25-27 that predates the cross. Jim |
|
Jim
IP: 71.100.232.252 Aug 20th, 2007 - 8:32 AM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Hi Gary, Jim (previous message): ... and the part of the tree that does not believe in Christ (the unbelieving natural branches), and which is therefore separated from the part of the tree that believes in Him, in 11:16-24 is the part of Israel that does not believe in Christ, and which is therefore separated from the part of Israel that believes in Him, in 11:25-27 ... Jim (this message): Yes, in Romans 11:25, the part of Israel that does not believe in Christ is separate and distinct from the part of Israel that believes in Him. As Paul states in Romans 9:6-8, the ones who comprise the Israel in 9:31-33 (the part of Israel that does not believe in Christ) are excluded from the Israel in 9:6-8 (the part of Israel that believes in Christ). So, yes, the two parts of Israel in Romans 11:25 are mutually exclusive, neither part being included in the other. These two mutually exclusive parts of Israel in Romans 11:25 are described as the two mutually exclusive Israels in Romans 9:6-8 and 9:31-33, neither Israel being included in the other. Jim |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 Sep 3rd, 2007 - 11:58 AM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
So, Jim, what are the implications for Christine doctrine regarding the unbelieving Israel? |
|
Jim
IP: 71.100.232.252 Sep 3rd, 2007 - 9:03 PM |
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum
Hi Gary, I don't understand the question. As Paul says, the unbelieving part of Israel doesn't believe in Christ and enter into the believing part of Israel (the Ekklhsia) until the Gentiles have believed in Him and have entered into the believing part of Israel (the Ekklhsia). Jim |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
powered by
bravenet.com