Comments
21 - 40 of 81 Comments Last updated Aug 17, 2013
New Guy

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Apr 17, 2013
 
God decided that the gentiles were to be included in the new covenant all the way back in the OT. The promise to Abraham makes that clear. The prophets testified of the fact. And God revealed to Peter, not Paul, first that He had accepted the gentiles. Read Peters' words in Acts 10:34-35. He said basically that there was no difference between Jew and gentile long before Paul ever penned Ephesians.

In Acts 11:23 Barnabas witnessed to the grace of God, the word being spoke also to the gentiles, Paul was nowhere to be found. In fact, Barnabas left Antioch to go to Tarsus to bring Paul back to meet with and teach the church. If Paul provided the gospel of grace, why not at Antioch?

Great grace was upon the Jewish believers in Acts 4:33. Grace was in effect on the church before the gentiles came along.

Read Peter's statement in Acts 15:7-12. Of note: "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." Peter is referring back to Cornelius and Acts 10. There was not two different gospels. There was one, only Peter was primarily to go to the Jews-after using the keys to admit the gentiles; and Paul was going to the gentiles because the Jews primarily rejected him.

Actually you are advocating three classes of people, good gentiles, wicked gentiles, and Jews.
William

Warrior, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Apr 17, 2013
 
I'm not advocating anything. I am going off of what was said about what kind of gentiles Paul describes in his Ephesian letter.

They are clearly different from other gentiles.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Apr 17, 2013
 
New Guy wrote:
Bobby, isn't it time to put the coc aside and get into the meatier discussion here? The issue here is about a fundamental change to what most people believe, that of two differing gospels. Do you think this has any merit at all? Are there indeed two different classes of people-as dispensationalism teaches? What say ye?
I have already said that I believe there is but one gospel. I do not care to entertain William on that. However My position is that the gospel is the same on both sides of the cross. One side points to Christ, the other side looks back to Christ-the cross is right in the middle. I think the coc believes that the OT saints are saved differently than we are. Would that not be two gospels?
William

Warrior, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Apr 17, 2013
 
Is the gospel of the kingdom that John the Baptist preached to Israel the same gospel that Christ gave to the 11, or the same gospel that Paul received from the resurrected Christ?

There is more than one gospel in the Bible.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Apr 17, 2013
 
William wrote:
Is the gospel of the kingdom that John the Baptist preached to Israel the same gospel that Christ gave to the 11, or the same gospel that Paul received from the resurrected Christ?
There is more than one gospel in the Bible.
Paul is speaking of the Jews having the same gospel we do. It might be hard for you to believe that the good news was in the old testament in concealed form but for us it is revealed form. When we look back at it we wonder why it was so clouded/veiled to them. The promise has always been Jesus the Jewish Messiah.

4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed. 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest,

nobody

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Apr 17, 2013
 
I know that some in the church of Christ teach the new covenant did not take effect at death as the bible teaches but took effect on the day of Pentecost. I have made it no secret I believe that is only an attempt to explain away the thief dying without baptism under the new covenant if it was instituted at death. I wonder if these two verses could apply because a lot happened when the veil was torn. Regardless if these verses are related there surely must have been a new covenant in effect for these saints to rise. What the veil represented by being torn(removing what was separating God and man)could only happen under the new covenant could it not?

Zec 9:11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Bobby

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Apr 17, 2013
 
nobody wrote:
I know that some in the church of Christ teach the new covenant did not take effect at death as the bible teaches but took effect on the day of Pentecost. I have made it no secret I believe that is only an attempt to explain away the thief dying without baptism under the new covenant if it was instituted at death. I wonder if these two verses could apply because a lot happened when the veil was torn. Regardless if these verses are related there surely must have been a new covenant in effect for these saints to rise. What the veil represented by being torn(removing what was separating God and man)could only happen under the new covenant could it not?
Zec 9:11 As for thee also, by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.
Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
I have often wondered if these saints lived a normal extended life after they were raised from the dead or did they quickly go on to heaven. There is a lot the bible does not tell us.
nobody

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Apr 17, 2013
 
Bobby wrote:
<quoted text>
I have often wondered if these saints lived a normal extended life after they were raised from the dead or did they quickly go on to heaven. There is a lot the bible does not tell us.
Yes, there is a lot untold. Some of their accounts would be interesting and it is strange more is not recorded about them. I have never heard a sermon on it.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Apr 17, 2013
 
I did a sermon on it once because a man in the congregation was causing issues over it. He sort of used it as proof that "the dead in Christ shall rise first" has already happened. All you can really say it was one of about seven miracles that happened at Calvary.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Apr 17, 2013
 
Bobby as you know very well I have always said that all are saved the same way, through obedient faith. We disagree on how that is done, but all are saved by grace through faith.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nobody, as far as the verses in Zechariah go, I do agree that they pertain to the new covenant. I don't agree that they refer to the resurrected saints in Matthew though. I believe a better idea is that prisoners are set free from sin, and the waterless pit could very well refer to dying lost in sin. In one of Jesus' first sermons in Luke, He spoke of freeing the captives by preaching the gospel.

I am also one of those preachers who believe the new covenant did not take effect until Pentecost, and I have documented several reasons why on here before. I see no scriptural reason to say the new covenant began at the crucifixion, that including the veil. The veil may show the way to God would be open, but the indwelling Spirit had not been sent yet, the terms of the covenant had not been given, and Pentecost is the antitype of the law being given at Sinai. As much as you will say I am trying to save my pet doctrine of baptism, I can also say that many try to save their pet doctrine of faith alone through teaching the thief is an example of new covenant conversion.
nobody

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Dave P wrote:
Nobody, as far as the verses in Zechariah go, I do agree that they pertain to the new covenant. I don't agree that they refer to the resurrected saints in Matthew though. I believe a better idea is that prisoners are set free from sin, and the waterless pit could very well refer to dying lost in sin. In one of Jesus' first sermons in Luke, He spoke of freeing the captives by preaching the gospel.
I am also one of those preachers who believe the new covenant did not take effect until Pentecost, and I have documented several reasons why on here before. I see no scriptural reason to say the new covenant began at the crucifixion, that including the veil. The veil may show the way to God would be open, but the indwelling Spirit had not been sent yet, the terms of the covenant had not been given, and Pentecost is the antitype of the law being given at Sinai. As much as you will say I am trying to save my pet doctrine of baptism, I can also say that many try to save their pet doctrine of faith alone through teaching the thief is an example of new covenant conversion.
1. The bible tells exactly when a covenant is in effect"For a testament is of force where there hath been death".
2. What the bible does not say is " but the indwelling Spirit had not been sent yet, the terms of the covenant had not been given"

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for doth it ever avail while he that made it liveth?
Heb 9:18 Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Apr 18, 2013
 
Read from Jeremiah where the prophecy of the new covenant was given. God promised to put a new spirit in His people, write the law in their hearts and minds. The Holy Spirit was to be a key fixture in the new covenant. John chapter seven speaks of Jesus saying that living water would come out of those believing, and John says He was talking about the Spirit Who hadn't come yet.

The term covenant is a term describing an agreement between 2 parties. It is also translated as a will or testament, and we get our modern ideas from the Biblical ones. Yes, covenants do take effect AFTER men are dead-but the terms of the covenant also must be in place. The terms and conditions of the new covenant weren't given until after the resurrection of Christ.

Pentecost in Acts 2 was not a coincidence. It was designed by God from old for a purpose. Pentecost fell on the exact day, according to the Jews, that the law was given on Sinai. 3000 were killed on Sinai for the golden calf, 3000 lived on the day the Spirit was given. Israel was betrothed to God on Sinai, the bride of Christ-the church-came into existence on Pentecost. On Sinai people heard Gods terms and said we will do them. On Pentecost people done the same thing, as Peter used the keys and people believed the terms and obeyed them.
Walkinginlove

Danville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Apr 18, 2013
 
Dave P wrote:
Nobody, as far as the verses in Zechariah go, I do agree that they pertain to the new covenant. I don't agree that they refer to the resurrected saints in Matthew though. I believe a better idea is that prisoners are set free from sin, and the waterless pit could very well refer to dying lost in sin. In one of Jesus' first sermons in Luke, He spoke of freeing the captives by preaching the gospel.
I am also one of those preachers who believe the new covenant did not take effect until Pentecost, and I have documented several reasons why on here before. I see no scriptural reason to say the new covenant began at the crucifixion, that including the veil.
Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Yes no reason to believe the New Covenant came into force at the death of the testator. No reason at all! ;)

In after men are dead, Jesus died on the cross, dead and buried. Death of the testator occurs, scripture is clear when the testament or New Testament comes into force.

You need to reconsider what your fellow believers have taught you!
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Apr 18, 2013
 
For nobody and WIL:

My fellow believers did not teach me this. The reason I even studied it is because of a radio conversation I heard between two Presbyterian preachers. They were asked when did the new covenant start, and they fumbled and hem hawed around. They couldn't decide between Calvary and Pentecost. I decided to study it myself. This isn't something generally taught in the coc as I am aware of. Many coc here really don't do a good job of teaching any kind of theology.

I laid out my case before and stand by it. Yes it is in effect after men are dead. Jesus had already died when Pentecost rolled around. The blood of the covenant was shed, but men did not have the terms and conditions of the covenant at this point, and had no opportunity to agree to it. This happened at Pentecost.

The feasts are no accident. I would recommend to all a good study of the feasts of the Lord, and OT typology in general. Many errors and questions in today's world vanish with this knowledge.
nobody

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Apr 18, 2013
 
Dave P wrote:
For nobody and WIL:
My fellow believers did not teach me this. The reason I even studied it is because of a radio conversation I heard between two Presbyterian preachers. They were asked when did the new covenant start, and they fumbled and hem hawed around. They couldn't decide between Calvary and Pentecost. I decided to study it myself. This isn't something generally taught in the coc as I am aware of. Many coc here really don't do a good job of teaching any kind of theology.
I laid out my case before and stand by it. Yes it is in effect after men are dead. Jesus had already died when Pentecost rolled around. The blood of the covenant was shed, but men did not have the terms and conditions of the covenant at this point, and had no opportunity to agree to it. This happened at Pentecost.
The feasts are no accident. I would recommend to all a good study of the feasts of the Lord, and OT typology in general. Many errors and questions in today's world vanish with this knowledge.
Dave, maybe you had better explain exactly what you mean by terms and conditions rather than for us to assume. The way I see it the terms and conditions were laid out previously and were put into effect at death.
nobody

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Apr 18, 2013
 
No wonder I don't have any money. People are dying all around me and and I am not giving the terms and conditions of their will, that includes me. Now that I know how that works I may have a brighter future.
Dave P

Morehead, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Apr 18, 2013
 
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the prophecy of the new covenant. Gods law will be in their hearts and minds and not on stone, all men in the covenant will know God, God will forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more.

Ezekiel 36:22-32 is another similar prophecy where we learn that people will be cleansed and God will give a new heart and God would put His Spirit within people.

The terms of pardon was given to people by the apostles on Pentecost. We see these ideas put together.

Sorry, but I'm falling asleep sitting here. I will do a better job after some sleep. Night folks.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Apr 19, 2013
 
William wrote:
"Anyone who thinks Paul knew more about the gospel than Peter, James or John is patently deluded and have no knowlege of Christ, nor are they capable to have the 'word of Christ' dwell richly in them."
Galatians 2:11-14 (KJV)
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
So, Barnsweb, who "knew more" about the gospel here? Paul, or Peter?
Peter. Do you also reject James? There was nothing at all wrong for Peter to have been eating with the one group, and when his friends came to visit, that seeing them, he excused himself to eat with them. Paul is the only one who seems to make any big deal of it, and the charge against Peter sounds very hollow indeed, as I've found far more to accuse against Paul in what he did himself! Of all those included in the Holy Scriptures, Paul is alone found to be constantly tooting his own false humility and then to tell how great he is... repeatedly. If it was found in one passage, perhaps it could be accounted for dismissal, but it's a constant theme throughout his books.

Do you accuse Paul for telling others one thing and doing another - such as appealing to Rome rather than facing the Church leaders in Jerusalem for what he was teaching those in Galatians and Ephesians that was against what God had decreed in the Holy Scripture?! And Jesus Himself commends those at Ephesis for finding those who claimed to be an apostle, but was found to be a liar.

Look carefully at the charges against Paul in Acts.

Peter, James and John each knew more - but Paul was a trained and extremely capable lawyer who could prove black is white and white is black.

Not that Paul never taught any truth - just that he is not one to trust to the level of truth as Peter, or any of the other true apostles.
Barnsweb

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Apr 19, 2013
 
Dave P: " The terms and conditions of the new covenant weren't given until after the resurrection of Christ. "

Have to beg to differ somewhat on that statement. The conditions of the covenant were given by the one who died, before he died. Same as making a will before you die, that goes into effect after you die, for those who are to inherit things in the will/covenant. Those things are found largely in the gospels and expended upon in the other books.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholics (Feb '14) 41 min Barnsweb 839
The Origin of the Roman Catholic Church 1 hr William 113
Signing off ... for now 16 hr Barnsweb 512
Where did the CoC cowards go? Aug 23 Jimmy Crack Corn 2
Debate: Ferguson - Martinsville, VA Aug 22 Barnsweb 8
what are the differences between orthodoxy and ... Aug 18 Jimmy-Crack-Corn 1
THE IDIOTS of GEW BIBLE STUDY FORUM Aug 17 The Seven Spirits... 5

Search the Bassett Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Bassett Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Bassett People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Bassett News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Bassett
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••