Understanding God’s election

[Rufus]

What do you mean by "the old covenant is what is in view in Revelation"?
I would say that the death and resurrection of Jesus brought the Old covenant to an end.
No, it is not still in effect.
The death and resurrection of Jesus in history demonstrates that the Old covenant has been concluded. And the giving of the zholy Spirit to Gentile believers.

"Will not prevail" is future tense.

The church has the ability to hasten the coming of the day of the Lord or to delay it, depending on how quickly we complete the great commission. The mystery of lawlessness at work in the church, is working to delay our completion of the great commission and so to delay Christ's return and the destruction of the kingdom of darkness. So, by hindering the church, satan is able to hinder Jesus' return.

Yes, "will not prevail" is future to when Christ spoke those words!

While the Old Covenant did become obsolete at the Cross, as the torn curtain between the holy place and holy of holies from top to bottom upon Jesus' death symbolized, nonetheless there was still one physical, temporal vestige of the OC that needed to be forever obliterated in order to consummate the OC's obsolescence.

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete ; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
NIV

What "will soon disappear" was the heartbeat and centerpiece of the OC economy: THE TEMPLE along with the priesthood, animal sacrifices, rituals, etc.! And the temple was still standing when John penned Revelation! Revelation was written during Nero's reign, not Domitian's!

 

[Rufus]

1. History.

2. Yes.
2Th 2:6
And now ye know what is restraining (katechon) that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7
For the mystery of iniquity is already working: only he now restraining (katechOn) will restrain, until he be taken out of the way.

3. Yes. As in 2.

So, Jesus's life, burial, resurrection and ascension were all epic fails since he failed in his mission to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn 3:8)? Since your eschatology has Jesus failing the first time around, what makes you think He'll succeed in his "second" coming when he sets up an earthly kingdom that is not his?

 

[PaulThomson]

Which goes to show you that there are various kinds of faith -- most of which are spurious. Even the demons in Mark 5 rushed to worship Jesus, so they did indeed believe he was the Son of God. And they believed he had the authority/power to judge and condemn them "before their time". Many people on this planet "believe in God" but unlike Abraham, they don't believe Him. Who in the world do you think Jesus is referring to in Mat 7:21-23?


So...does that mean, then, no one in this age is actually saved because no one can know if he's saved until he receives his "medical degree" upon death?


Of all the many commands in the bible, I wonder why there aren't any commands for Christ's disciples to become language scholars?

There is only one kind of faith, the faith that believes. That faith nay be placed in a myriad of different things. That faith put in Christ is what saves us from death and sin and the world and the devil. There are many things which, if we put our faith in them, are spiritually deadly. There are also many things, for which putting our faith in them is eminently useful and practical.

 

[PaulThomson]

Yes, "will not prevail" is future to when Christ spoke those words!

While the Old Covenant did become obsolete at the Cross, as the torn curtain between the holy place and holy of holies from top to bottom upon Jesus' death symbolized, nonetheless there was still one physical, temporal vestige of the OC that needed to be forever obliterated in order to consummate the OC's obsolescence.

Heb 8:13
13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete ; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
NIV

What "will soon disappear" was the heartbeat and centerpiece of the OC economy: THE TEMPLE along with the priesthood, animal sacrifices, rituals, etc.! And the temple was still standing when John penned Revelation! Revelation was written during Nero's reign, not Domitian's!

What about synagogues where obedience to the Mosaic laws of the Old Covenant is still being taught as being in place. Why do you not see these as vestiges of the Old Covenant that need to be forever obliterated?

 

[PaulThomson]

The life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus did usher in the new covenant, but how does it conclude the old covenant. The old covenant had blessing for obedience to the covenant and destruction for not upholding its terms. Since Israel did not abide by its terms, it was subject to the cursings of the law. This would have to transpire before the covenant could be satisfied, yes? So when did this occur?

Jesus' comments were future to the point in time He made them, but not future to His death. The cross changed everything, including who was ruling.

The victory of the cross and the resurrection cast "the god of this world" out of heaven. He no longer has access to God's throne, as he had in Job's day He is now the prince of the powers of the air, restricted to moving within the earth's atmosphere.

The death and resurrection of Christ also ended the Old Covenant's demands as a legal code and second pathway for attempting to achieve right standing with God.

No. if there are sanctions applied under a set of laws, and the legal framework is declared defunct, there is no need to carry out those sanctions after it is declared defunct in order for it to become fully annulled. What you are suggesting would make no sense at all.

 

[PaulThomson]

So, Jesus's life, burial, resurrection and ascension were all epic fails since he failed in his mission to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn 3:8)? Since your eschatology has Jesus failing the first time around, what makes you think He'll succeed in his "second" coming when he sets up an earthly kingdom that is not his?

I certainly don't believe that "Jesus's life, burial, resurrection and ascension were all epic fails since he failed in his mission to destroy the works of the devil." My escatology has Jesus succveeding in His mission first time round. And I believe He will succeed in his second coming. I don'r see how you could come to the conclusion from what i wrote that I believe differently.

 

[PaulThomson]

Also, how does one "enter into Christ"? What puts a person "in Christ"?

Believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and confessing Him as Lord puts a person into Christ.

 

[Cameron143]

The victory of the cross and the resurrection cast "the god of this world" out of heaven. He no longer has access to God's throne, as he had in Job's day He is now the prince of the powers of the air, restricted to moving within the earth's atmosphere.

The death and resurrection of Christ also ended the Old Covenant's demands as a legal code and second pathway for attempting to achieve right standing with God.

No. if there are sanctions applied under a set of laws, and the legal framework is declared defunct, there is no need to carry out those sanctions after it is declared defunct in order for it to become fully annulled. What you are suggesting would make no sense at all.

Hardly. If you understood that Deuteronomy teaches of a covenant being instituted with very distinct stipulations, and Revelation as a book revealing the impending sanctions for not keeping the terms of the covenant, you would understand the book, and God's purpose in writing it.
Also, if the old covenant ended at the cross, why does the writer of Hebrews say it is fading...Hebrews 8:13? The cross had rendered the covenant obsolete, but it couldn't be ended until all the terms of the covenant were met.
Also, Satan, while still a significant foe, has no power over Christians. And even those who he exercises power over, he cannot keep if Christ decides to make them His own. He's impotent to do anything against those God sets His affections upon.

 

[Inquisitor]

What about synagogues where obedience to the Mosaic laws of the Old Covenant is still being taught as being in place. Why do you not see these as vestiges of the Old Covenant that need to be forever obliterated?

The old covenant was based on the book of the law.

The old covenant was a conditional covenant between Israel and God.

Conditional in that Israel had to obey the book of the law.

If the old covenant has passed then the book of the law has passed also.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[Inquisitor]

Believing that God raised Jesus from the dead and confessing Him as Lord puts a person into Christ.

I think the scripture states that a person is saved who believes in Jesus.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised
Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[PaulThomson]

Hardly. If you understood that Deuteronomy teaches of a covenant being instituted with very distinct stipulations, and Revelation as a book revealing the impending sanctions for not keeping the terms of the covenant, you would understand the book, and God's purpose in writing it.
Also, if the old covenant ended at the cross, why does the writer of Hebrews say it is fading...Hebrews 8:13? The cross had rendered the covenant obsolete, but it couldn't be ended until all the terms of the covenant were met.
Also, Satan, while still a significant foe, has no power over Christians. And even those who he exercises power over, he cannot keep if Christ decides to make them His own. He's impotent to do anything against those God sets His affections upon.

"If I understood"? If you understand it, then maybe you could explain it to us, rather than just insinuation you have some special gnosis that others lesser Bible students don't have.

Why do you say The OC ended with the fall of Jerusalem, when it is clearly still even now in the process of fading away? Judaism is still being practised today, Cameron.

If you think satan has no power over any Christians today, you are an ideologue who does not use his eyes to garner evidence. He is still deceiving many Christians today and capturing them to do his will.

 

[PaulThomson]

The old covenant was based on the book of the law.

The old covenant was a conditional covenant between Israel and God.

Conditional in that Israel had to obey the book of the law.

If the old covenant has passed then the book of the law has passed also.

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The old covenant was contained within the book of the law, but the new covenant was also contained in the book of the law. Therefore, yoiur statement that "If the old covenant has passed then the book of the law has passed also" is false.

 

[Cameron143]

"If I understood"? If you understand it, then maybe you could explain it to us, rather than just insinuation you have some special gnosis that others lesser Bible students don't have.

Why do you say The OC ended with the fall of Jerusalem, when it is clearly still even now in the process of fading away? Judaism is still being practised today, Cameron.

If you think satan has no power over any Christians today, you are an ideologue who does not use his eyes to garner evidence. He is still deceiving many Christians today and capturing them to do his will.

The covenant passed when all the terms of the covenant were met. That occurred with the destruction of Israel. There was a measure of sin that God would allow before He poured out His wrath on Israel. Read Matthew 23:13-36. Jesus tells them their history of the persecution of God's servants and that their generation would suffer the judgment for all the righteous blood spilled throughout history.
Now read Matthew 21:33 to the end. It's the same story in parable form. What happened in Jerusalem is what the owner of the vineyard did to the husbandmen upon His return.
This also corresponds to the judgments promised in Deuteronomy for Israel's failure to keep the terms of the covenant.

Why don't you believe God would carry out the sanctions of a failed covenant just like He promised? When hasn't God's word ever been trustworthy?

The fact that people believe they are still under a covenant only tells us that a covenant previously existed, and not that it still exists. In a previous post already assented that the old covenant no longer exists.

I apologize if you were offended at my manner of discourse. I'll try to be more sensitive.

 

[Magenta]

I'll try to be more sensitive.

I very much doubt the problem is on your end.

 

[PaulThomson]

The covenant passed when all the terms of the covenant were met. That occurred with the destruction of Israel. There was a measure of sin that God would allow before He poured out His wrath on Israel. Read Matthew 23:13-36. Jesus tells them their history of the persecution of God's servants and that their generation would suffer the judgment for all the righteous blood spilled throughout history.
Now read Matthew 21:33 to the end. It's the same story in parable form. What happened in Jerusalem is what the owner of the vineyard did to the husbandmen upon His return.
This also corresponds to the judgments promised in Deuteronomy for Israel's failure to keep the terms of the covenant.

Why don't you believe God would carry out the sanctions of a failed covenant just like He promised? When hasn't God's word ever been trustworthy?

The fact that people believe they are still under a covenant only tells us that a covenant previously existed, and not that it still exists. In a previous post already assented that the old covenant no longer exists.

I apologize if you were offended at my manner of discourse. I'll try to be more sensitive.

Your interpretation of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New relies on your parsing terms in an ad hoc manner that is convenient for the outcome you desire. You may be correct in the way you are dividing of the word of truth, but it seems rather a contrived version of history to me. It is clear that many elements of the Old Covenant are still present in the world as Judaism, and it has not even yet passed away completely, even though in God's economy it is already obsolete and powerless.

Okay. I read Matt. 21. Are you claiming that Jesus, the landowner, returned to Jerusalem in 70 AD? His appearing as lightning fills the sky from east to west so that every eye would see Him happened in 70 AD? I can't see how that can be historically correct.

 

[Cameron143]

Your interpretation of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New relies on your parsing terms in an ad hoc manner that is convenient for the outcome you desire. You may be correct in the way you are dividing of the word of truth, but it seems rather a contrived version of history to me. It is clear that many elements of the Old Covenant are still present in the world as Judaism, and it has not even yet passed away completely, even though in God's economy it is already obsolete and powerless.

Okay. I read Matt. 21. Are you claiming that Jesus, the landowner, returned to Jerusalem in 70 AD? His appearing as lightning fills the sky from east to west so that every eye would see Him happened in 70 AD? I can't see how that can be historically correct.

It's correct. It corroborates what Jesus foretold in parable and directly. And every eye doesn't have to mean every living person; only the audience that observed. Nor does it mean He has to be directly observed, but that what was done was observed.

The old covenant has passed. Regardless of its practice, God is no longer dealing with the Jewish nation, nor any other nation. To be God's covenant people now one must be born again spiritually. Only through and in Christ is one in covenant with God.

 

[Inquisitor]

The old covenant was contained within the book of the law, but the new covenant was also contained in the book of the law. Therefore, yoiur statement that "If the old covenant has passed then the book of the law has passed also" is false.

Do you advocate circumcision?

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
The old covenant was contained within the book of the law, but the new covenant was also contained in the book of the law. Therefore, yoiur statement that "If the old covenant has passed then the book of the law has passed also" is false.

Do you advocate circumcision?

Of the heart? Yes.

BTW. The Book of the Law is not the same thing as the requirement to fulfil the Mosaic Law.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
Your interpretation of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New relies on your parsing terms in an ad hoc manner that is convenient for the outcome you desire. You may be correct in the way you are dividing of the word of truth, but it seems rather a contrived version of history to me. It is clear that many elements of the Old Covenant are still present in the world as Judaism, and it has not even yet passed away completely, even though in God's economy it is already obsolete and powerless.

Okay. I read Matt. 21. Are you claiming that Jesus, the landowner, returned to Jerusalem in 70 AD? His appearing as lightning fills the sky from east to west so that every eye would see Him happened in 70 AD? I can't see how that can be historically correct.

It's correct. It corroborates what Jesus foretold in parable and directly. And every eye doesn't have to mean every living person; only the audience that observed. Nor does it mean He has to be directly observed, but that what was done was observed.

You are free to believe that. It doesn't make sense to me, though.

The old covenant has passed. Regardless of its practice, God is no longer dealing with the Jewish nation, nor any other nation. To be God's covenant people now one must be born again spiritually. Only through and in Christ is one in covenant with God.

We at least agree there.

 

[Inquisitor]

PaulThomson said:
The old covenant was contained within the book of the law, but the new covenant was also contained in the book of the law. Therefore, yoiur statement that "If the old covenant has passed then the book of the law has passed also" is false.

Of the heart? Yes.

BTW. The Book of the Law is not the same thing as the requirement to fulfil the Mosaic Law.

Love fulfills the law but Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law anyway.

The old covenant was strictly between Israel and God.

The old covenant was not between Rome and God.