The new covenant with Christ Jesus

[chubbena]

Why, sure! There are other subjects, words not even in the Bible. For instance, the word "troll." We could talk about the psychology surrounding the internet troll, the deep feelings of inadequacy, the anger, the incessant need for attention, even negative attention, the desperation so deep. We could perhaps explore how anonymity proves how the troll psychological pathology supersedes any personal dignity.

But, then again, this is a BIBLE DISCUSSION FORUM.

DUH!

Read between the lines.
It's a Bible Discussion forum alright but some make it a New Testament (as in the last 27 books in the bible) Only Forum and attack those who find a balance in between the first 39 books and the last 27 books. The notion that "letter kills" applies to anything written, including the NT, when all one sees is letter.

 

[Elin]

Read between the lines.
It's a Bible Discussion forum alright but some make it a New Testament (as in the last 27 books in the bible) Only Forum and attack
those who find a balance in between the first 39 books and the last 27 books.

We have to "balance" God's word, he hasn't already "balanced" it for us?

Poor God, his arm is too short, he is always leaving his work incomplete.

The notion that "letter kills" applies to anything written, including the NT, when all one sees is letter.

According to your notions only.

Biblically, Paul's usage of "letter" means the law of Moses,
which, for those who don't know, is not the NT.

 

[chubbena]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Non-responsive.

A non-responsive to a non-responsive to a non-responsive.

Does one see that the two commandments of the law of grace are fulfillment of the law of Moses
(Mt 22:40)?

One has to read what's not there to consider the two hanged the law spoken through Moses when the Word of God said the whole law spoken through Moses hangs on the two.

That's a FAIL.

Gal 5:6 - "All that matters is faith expressing itself through love."

And you limit that to circumcision, rather than applying it to "all that matters". . .self-evident FAIL.

That's absolutely a fail to notice Galatians 5:6 says neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.

He was applying what Jesus said in Mt 22:40.

It's fantastic for one to finally come to the understanding of "the commandments" which one considers them obsolete and says I don't need no law to remind me such and such.

Non-responsive.

Was this

Is Paul talking about the obedience of faith (Mt 22:37-40), or as a means of salvation?

a responsive one to

...the commandments and promises of God to the OT Israelites indeed applies to gentile believers.
Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.Honor your father and mother - which is the first commandment with a promise - that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.

and that

Paul was referring to the Word of God in Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you"

was to show who is the non responsive here?

 

[chubbena]

We have to "balance" God's word, he hasn't already "balanced" it for us?

Poor God, his arm is too short, he is always leaving his work incomplete.


According to your notions only.

Biblically, Paul's usage of "letter" means the law of Moses,
which, for those who don't know, is not the NT.

That's a big difference between what I said "finding balance in OT and NT" and this poster's twisted word that "we have to balance God's word".
The Word of God is perfect until this poster upsets the balance and mocks in God's name - and shows her disrespect and unbelief because all she does is to upset and to provoke.

 

[just-me]

That's a big difference between what I said "finding balance in OT and NT" and this poster's twisted word that "we have to balance God's word".
The Word of God is perfect until this poster upsets the balance and mocks in God's name - and shows her disrespect and unbelief because all she does is to upset and to provoke.

I think we are exhorted to be balanced, but as we all know God's Word is the standard to calibrate our balance. All of God's Word!! Good point that you make. We are in it (the covenant) together with Christ Jesus. Falsehood then comes from a person who is not balanced. LOL Tactics of the adversary want to negate certain parts of God's word using His grace, and the sacrifice of His only begotten Son as an excuse. What a shame.

 

[Elin]

I think we are exhorted to be balanced, but as we all know God's Word is the standard to calibrate our balance. All of God's Word!! Good point that you make.
We are in it (the new covenant) together with Christ Jesus.

Still waiting to be shown where that is specifically stated in the NT.

 

[just-me]

I think we are exhorted to be balanced, but as we all know God's Word is the standard to calibrate our balance. All of God's Word!! Good point that you make. We are in it (the new covenant) together with Christ Jesus. Falsehood then comes from a person who is not balanced. LOL Tactics of the adversary want to negate certain parts of God's word using His grace, and the sacrifice of His only begotten Son as an excuse. What a shame.

from post 446

Still waiting to be shown where that is specifically stated in the NT.

I think I had mentioned one of these before, so I'll quote more scripture. If you can't get it then, I have no more to offer you. Sorry

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

1 Thessalonians 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep , we should live together with him.

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God , and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together .

 

[Hoffco]

That's a big difference between what I said "finding balance in OT and NT" and this poster's twisted word that "we have to balance God's word".
The Word of God is perfect until this poster upsets the balance and mocks in God's name - and shows her disrespect and unbelief because all she does is to upset and to provoke.

Sorry Elin, but, I see, I am not the only one who says, you don't know the "balance" in God's words and you are "mocking" God, beware, of your sin,. Love Hoffco

 

[Elin]

Still waiting to be shown where "in the new covenant with Christ" is specifically stated in the NT.

I think I had mentioned one of these before, so I'll quote more scripture.
If you can't get it then, I have no more to offer you. Sorry

Well, if they aren't the specific statements I requested, it's because there are none in the NT.

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

This does not specifically state that we are "in the new covenant with Christ."

This is paralleling our quickening to eternal life with Christ's quickening to life at his resurrection.

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.

"Him" here is God the Father, not Christ.

1 Thessalonians 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep , we should live together with him.

Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God , and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together .

These do not state "a new covenant with Christ."

Everything God gives us in the NT is the result of his new covenant.

But that connection does not constitute our being in "a new covenant with Christ."

Sorry, you have not Biblically demonstrated your assertion.

That we are in "a new covenant with Christ Jesus" is not NT teaching, it is only "just-me" teaching.

 

[just-me]

It is astounding that quoting NT scripture is labeled as not teaching NT.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Yous is puttin a hurt on mah brain!

No way I could suffer reading this whole thread, so apologize if this has come up, but is there some dispute over what a covenant is? Is it not an agreement, a contract, and doesn't any covenant require at least two parties, despite who drafted the contract? Would one not be in covenant with the Lord Jesus, accepting His contract by faith? How can there be a covenant without parties (plural) to it? Or, in other words, say God's covenant of the law with Israel: was it not expected Israel keep those laws, as the second party to God's covenant?

Y'alls bes a seein whut ahs a drivin et? Huh?

(If y'all likes, I gots sum swamp land be mighty 'blidged ta covenant y'all, iffins y'all don be needin no broom jumpin fer me pickin in yer cookie jar...)

 

[JesusIsAll]

Luke 1* "What we've got here is failure to communicate."

* Cool Hand Luke

 

[Elin]

These do not state "a new covenant with Christ."

Everything God gives us in the NT is the result of his new covenant cut
in the blood of Christ.

But that connection does not constitute our being in "a new covenant with Christ."

Sorry, you have not Biblically demonstrated your assertion.

That we are in "a new covenant with Christ Jesus" is not NT teaching,
it is only "just-me" teaching.

It is astounding that quoting NT scripture is labeled as not teaching NT.

And here we have the a perfect example of the methodology of those of your unorthodox religious persuasion.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Allow me to provide an annoying example. I had a townhome years ago, and it had an association. That association had covenants I had not one whit to do with creating, which I even thought some of which really sucked, but they were between homeowner and the association, such that I could not buy the property without signing to agree with the terms of that covenant package. But the covenant is nothing without the second party, that is, no covenant actually in existence without parties to the terms of the covenant. So, I think you all may be right, given some sort of intra-language Google translate.

 

[JesusIsAll]

For example,

"But that connection does not constitute our being in "a new covenant with Christ."

We have no new covenant with Christ, as we didn't sit down and negotiate a covenant with Him. But we do have His new covenant of grace by faith, which we must be a party to, thus be in a covenant relationship with the Lord.

There, I shall now leave you guys to pistols at ten paces, should I have failed to lend any outside assistance.

 

[JesusIsAll]

For example, I noticed this,

But that connection does not constitute our being in "a new covenant with Christ."

We do not have a new covenant with Christ, as we did not sit down with Him and draft terms of a covenant. That covenant existed before each of our births, and we drafted none of it, and God doesn't negotiate such things. On the other hand, we are in covenant with Christ, by agreeing to His new covenant of grace by faith, by being second parties to the covenant, the contract, the agreement.

Okay. I leave you guys to pistols at ten paces, if I have failed to lend any assistance.

 

[just-me]

For example, I noticed this,

But that connection does not constitute our being in "a new covenant with Christ."

We do not have a new covenant with Christ, as we did not sit down with Him and draft terms of a covenant. That covenant existed before each of our births, and we drafted none of it, and God doesn't negotiate such things. On the other hand, we are in covenant with Christ, by agreeing to His new covenant of grace by faith, by being second parties to the covenant, the contract, the agreement.

Okay. I leave you guys to pistols at ten paces, if I have failed to lend any assistance.

I just as well could have named the thread The New Covenant via or by Christ Jesus and it wouldn't have made a difference. I should have done this a long time ago. My mistake. LOL
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them .

 

[Elin]

Yous is puttin a hurt on mah brain!

No way I could suffer reading this whole thread, so apologize if this has come up, but is there some dispute over what a covenant is?
Is it not an agreement, a contract, and doesn't any covenant require at least two parties, despite who drafted the contract?

Well actually, there are two kinds of covenants:

bilateral and conditional - as in Ge 17, Abrahamic, and Ex 19-24, Mosaic (Sinaitic)
where both parties participate in the covenant,
and violation by either party nullifies the covenant

unilateral and unconditional - as in Ge 15:9-21, land covenant; 2Sa 7:5-16, Davidic; Jer 31:31-34, new.
God is the only participant in a unilateral covenant.
The other parties are simply recipients.
Only God can break a unilateral covenant, because he is the only one committing to performance in it,
as in the land covenant, Davidic covenant, new covenant.

Covenants are "cut" (ratified) in blood,
of animals in the OT, and of Christ in the NT.
But covenants are made by God, not by the one (animal or human) whose blood is spilled.

Would one not be in covenant with the Lord Jesus, accepting His contract by faith?

Actually, God cut the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34) in the blood of Christ,
which blood atoned for the sin of those who believe in him. (Ro 3:25).

Christ is the mediator, between God and man in the new covenant, he is not its author.
And we are recipients of the new covenant,
there is no performance of good works required of us to enter into the new covenant,
we enter only by faith in Jesus Christ.

How can there be a covenant without parties (plural) to it?
Or, in other words, say God's covenant of the law with Israel:
was it not expected Israel keep those laws, as the second party to God's covenant?

Yes, the Mosaic (Sinaitic) covenant was a bilateral conditional covenant,
dependant on the performance of all parties to the covenant to keep it in force.

Y'alls bes a seein whut ahs a drivin et? Huh?

(If y'all likes, I gots sum swamp land be mighty 'blidged ta covenant y'all, iffins y'all don be needin no broom jumpin fer me pickin in yer cookie jar...)

I bees seein' what chu's talkin' 'bout.

You bees seein' what I's talkin' 'bout?

 

[JesusIsAll]

I just as well could have named the thread The New Covenant via Christ Jesus and it wouldn't have made a difference. I should have done this a long time ago. My mistake. LOL
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned ; and avoid them .

Really, I didn't read all the thread, by have checked this out then and again, and it seems that maybe there was some dispute as to whether we are part of the covenant, with respect to having anything to do with drafting it, which we didn't. Our input to God's covenant, when we don't even seek Him, is an absurdity, but I wasn't seeing anybody exactly saying this. Also, a covenant has parties to it, so, of course, we're part of it, like the children of Israel the law, again, second parties. So the covenant is God's, with us, for us, but not us from the standpoint of setting any terms. Then there's the final analysis: what on earth are you guys talking about, anyway? LOL!

 

[LEPIDUS]

Then there's the final analysis: what on earth are you guys talking about, anyway? LOL!

Should have read the thread.