Marilyn C Posted April 13, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 268 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,229 Content Per Day: 3.48 Reputation: 8,517 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted April 13, 2015 MY VIEW.& also for the promises of "different inheritances" to the "different groups". You are teaching that there are more than just one body of Christ by using the term "different group(s)". There is only ONE BODY of Christ made up of believing Jews and Gentiles. The "one" new man created in Christ Jesus our Lord as we are made a new creature in Christ. You have divided that One Body into "group(s)" That is not what the scripture teaches especially the scriptures that are found in Ephesians. Hi Openly Curious, If you have another look at my post you will see the different groups I have mentioned – `The Body of Christ, Israel & the Nations.` God in His word specifically says for us to not give offense to these three groups. `Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks (the nations) or to the church of God.` (1 Cor. 10: 32) I see each of these groups in God`s word & I can see them today in our world. Can you? Marilyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted April 13, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 268 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,229 Content Per Day: 3.48 Reputation: 8,517 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Hi Saved34, You asked Shiloh this, however I had posted earlier, others who taught that God the Father & God the Son made a covenant between themselves. Where is your support for saying such things, what Church Father supports this train of thought, what scriptures are you interpreting to say such things? `Covenant - Divines ….between the Father & the Son, for the redemption of as many out of the fallen race as should attain life eternal.` (from Fairbairn`s Bible Encyclopedia)`A covenant existed between God the Father & His beloved Son from everlasting, which can never break down because of either one failing to fulfill the agreement.` From `His Glorious Name` by Charles J. Rolls: renowned on several continents for His encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture & his radiant devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a missionary in India, a home director for the Sudan Interior Mission, founder & dean of Bible schools in New Zealand, Australia & the United States. These teachers have been well recognized across the Body of Christ. Then you ask - Notice he says, with "them", the New Covenant is a Covenant for the people. In speaking to Abraham he said: Gen 17:6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. Gen 17:7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. God said He would `establish` His covenant with Abraham. `I will….I will….`Establish – Heb. Word `quwm` meaning to rise, accomplish, make good, perform….. Thus we see that God is `establishing` His covenant with Abraham. However we need to realize here that what God is doing with man is not a contract, a covenant that puts man on equal footing with God, but that God is declaring His purposes & His faithfulness to accomplish what He purposed. Marilyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 268 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,229 Content Per Day: 3.48 Reputation: 8,517 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted April 14, 2015 It goes all the way back to the Abrahamic Covenant when God swore by Himself. And if you go back to Gen. 15 it was God alone who walked between the animal halves. Abraham did not walk between the halves. God made the Covenant with Himself and that is a picture of the New Covenant. It was not made with mankind. God made the New Covenant with Himself. It is cut in Jesus' blood, not in the blood of any mere man. Hi Shiloh357, Some good thoughts there on God`s covenant with His Son. Marilyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saved34 Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,185 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 667 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/28/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1971 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Jesus was fully human and the New Covenant was cut in His blood, not in the blood of a "mere" man. Jesus was not a mere man, but was fully God and fully man. The New Covenant is not with mankind but with God Himself, Jesus and the Father. I don't see how that is a "fancy new doctrine." Jesus even said that His blood is the blood of the new covenant. Who else would God make the New Covenant with? Who else would he make the New covenant with? Good grief, it's like we are not even dialoging with each other. Of course Christ is not a mere man, he is the representative man, he shed human blood for all man. Why was his blood shed in the first place? As payment for sin. The New Testament is Christ blood shed for us. If you are saying God took it upon himself to save us, then I agree, but saying the New Testament is not a covenant with man is just ridiculous. Man has a responsibility in this New and better covenant in that he must believe the record that God gave of his Son. Those who do not are condemned. Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saved34 Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,185 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 667 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/28/2012 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/19/1971 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Hi Saved34, You asked Shiloh this, however I had posted earlier, others who taught that God the Father & God the Son made a covenant between themselves. Where is your support for saying such things, what Church Father supports this train of thought, what scriptures are you interpreting to say such things? `Covenant - Divines ….between the Father & the Son, for the redemption of as many out of the fallen race as should attain life eternal.` (from Fairbairn`s Bible Encyclopedia)`A covenant existed between God the Father & His beloved Son from everlasting, which can never break down because of either one failing to fulfill the agreement.` From `His Glorious Name` by Charles J. Rolls: renowned on several continents for His encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture & his radiant devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a missionary in India, a home director for the Sudan Interior Mission, founder & dean of Bible schools in New Zealand, Australia & the United States. These teachers have been well recognized across the Body of Christ. Then you ask - Notice he says, with "them", the New Covenant is a Covenant for the people. In speaking to Abraham he said: Gen 17:6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. Gen 17:7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. God said He would `establish` His covenant with Abraham. `I will….I will….`Establish – Heb. Word `quwm` meaning to rise, accomplish, make good, perform….. Thus we see that God is `establishing` His covenant with Abraham. However we need to realize here that what God is doing with man is not a contract, a covenant that puts man on equal footing with God, but that God is declaring His purposes & His faithfulness to accomplish what He purposed. Marilyn. Marilyn, of course God "will". It all began with his divine will, he is the author of our salvation, I don't recall ever denying that. Also, who in the world ever said that our precious salvation that is all of God, is a contract? That does not negate clear scripture in which God said he made the New Covenant with man. I am a dispensationlist too, but it almost seems like this teaching is going more toward hyper dispensationalism. The New Covenant is God loving us when we yet dead in sin, and saving us by his own will and grace. This whole thing is getting very confusing as I really don't know where you and Shiloh are going with these strange teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 268 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,229 Content Per Day: 3.48 Reputation: 8,517 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Share Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) I hear you, Marilyn, but you are not using good hermeneutics because you are mixing contexts. Paul uses the same terms different ways in different contexts and you have to pay attention to that when you are interpreting Scripture. You are letting your theology drive your interpretation and people do that when they want a particular passage to mean something. That is the opposite of how good interpretive skills work. You want Jesus to be the root in Romans 11, so you find some other place in Scripture where Jesus is called a "root" and then plug that into Romans 11 and claim that because Jesus was called a "root" in Revelation, for instance, then every time the word "root" is used, it refers to Jesus. Same with the first fruits. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, but that does NOT mean that we can make the assumption that we can apply that meaning to "first fruits" in Romans 11. You cannot mix contexts, because the same terminology isn't be used the same way every time we see it in the NT. Hi Shiloh357, I can see that it would appear that way at first glance. So let`s look at what Paul (& others) actually say in relation to the first fruits.`First-fruits of the Spirit..` (Rom. 8: 23) `First-fruits of Achaia..` (Rom. 16: 5, 1 Cor. 16: 15) `First-fruits of those who have fallen asleep..` (1 Cor. 15: 20) `First-fruits of His creatures..` (James 1: 18) `First-fruits to God & to the Lamb.` (Rev. 14: 4) God is very specific when He is naming & describing things. All those `first-fruits` have their explanation. And the `first-fruit` in Romans 11 is clearly described also & is associated with `dough.` `For if the first-fruit is holy, the lump is also holy.` (Rom. 11: 16) Lump – Gk. `phurama,` meaning to mix, swelling, knead, a mass of dough. (from grain) Now we look at where God has `first-fruit & dough/grain` associated. And we see it has to do with the Feast of Harvest, First-Fruits. And as I said previously this is referring to Christ as the First fruit of the resurrection from the dead. `The Feast of Harvest, the first –fruits of your labours which you have sown in the field.` (Ex. 23: 16) `The first-fruit also of your grain & your new wine & your oil…` (Deut. 18: 4) `Christ the first-fruits……` (1 Cor. 15: 23) Thus if the `first-fruit is holy,` that is if Christ is Holy, then `the lump is also holy,`…`each one in his order: Christ the first-fruits, afterwards those who are Christ`s at His coming.` (1 Cor. 15: 23) Now again to the `Root.` Shiloh said - You want Jesus to be the root in Romans 11, so you find some other place in Scripture where Jesus is called a "root" and then plug that into Romans 11 and claim that because Jesus was called a "root" in Revelation, for instance, then every time the word "root" is used, it refers to Jesus. And of course that would be bad `hermeneutics` as you so rightly said. However I didn`t do that. We see in Rom. 11 that the `root` is associated with these phrases, `holy, partaker of the root & fatness of the olive tree, & the root supports you.` So there we have quite a specific description of the `root,` in this metaphor. The Lord Jesus Christ is the one who is called `the Root of David.` Now you said that (quote) `Jesus statement there has to do with His messianic, physical lineage. He is simply affirming His right to reign on David`s throne.` However if that was the case then the word `branch,` would have been used as in Isaiah 11: 1 `And a Branch shall grow out of his (Jesse`s) roots.` Yes, Jesus is called the `Root of David,` in relation to the throne of David, (in Rev. 22: 16) but this term involves more than just lineage. The Lord as the `Root,` is David`s source, sustainer & support. This we see throughout David`s life. And more still for the Lord is not only David`s Root, but the Root of everyone. He is our source, our sustainer & our support. These are scriptures that I gave previously to show that the Lord Jesus Christ is the `Root` of all. `He gives to all life, & breath, & all things.` (Acts 17: 25) ` For in Him we live & move & have our being,…` (Acts. 17: 28) `For of Him & through Him & to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever.` (Rom. 11: 36) `Of Him,` as to the source & spring; `through Him,` as to the supply & stream; &`and unto Him are all things,` as to their result & end. And note this scripture is the summing up of what the `olive tree,` is about – Christ. So glad you brought up the subject of Hermeneutics, for now it is your turn to show how you can support your claims. You need to have other scriptures than just Rom. 11, for that is the metaphor, & we well know that a metaphor has to be interpreted with other scriptures on that topic.The First-fruit…………………………………… The holy root…………………………………... The fatness (sustaining)……………………. The support…………………………………….. Hermeneutics – the interpretation of scripture, & that is a whole topic on its own for if we have a different understanding of that, then that leads to all our different views. Looking forward to seeing your scriptures that open up to us this metaphor. Marilyn. Edited April 14, 2015 by Marilyn C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.34 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 14, 2015 Covenant - Divines ….between the Father & the Son, for the redemption of as many out of the fallen race as should attain life eternal.` (from Fairbairn`s Bible Encyclopedia) There is no such covenant between the Father and the Son in all of Scripture. There are many "imaginary" covenants which Covenant Theology has created, but there is absolutely no Scripture to support this mistaken idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Yes He did make a covenant with Himself. Jesus and the Father, before the world was even created, agreed that Jesus would be our Savior. Jesus left heaven and took on human flesh and died for us on the cross and His blood was the blood of the New Covenant. Jesus and the Father are the two parties. God made the Covenant with Himself because the Father and Jesus are God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 14, 2015 It goes all the way back to the Abrahamic Covenant when God swore by Himself. And if you go back to Gen. 15 it was God alone who walked between the animal halves. Abraham did not walk between the halves. God made the Covenant with Himself and that is a picture of the New Covenant. It was not made with mankind. God made the New Covenant with Himself. It is cut in Jesus' blood, not in the blood of any mere man.There is not one thing here that you've said that is true except that Abraham did not walk between the halves.It is not found written in Genesis 15 that God swore by Himself.It is not found written in Genesis 15 that it was God alone who walked between the animal halves.It is not found written in Genesis 15 that God made a covenant with Himself.It is not found written in Genesis 15 about any symbolism or picture of the New Covenant given.It is not taught nor found in scripture especially in Genesis 15 where God made the New Covenant with Himself.It is not taught nor found in scripture especially in Genesis 15 where it is "cut" in Jesus bloodThe covenant that was found written in Genesis 15 was a covenant of promise God made specifically with a man called Abraham. It was a consuming furnace and a burning lamp that consummed the offering that Abraham was told to prepare. The consumption of the animal sacrifices assured Abraham that what God had promised him would come to pass and Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. God kept and brought to pass the words in the covenant betwixt the two of them not one of them have failed.God was pleased (satisfied) with the sacrifice of his son Jesus whom he gave for the propitiation of our sins and thus the promised "seed" (Jesus Christ)brought the New Covenant into effect having greater promises than the Old Covenant which was not perfect. The birth of Christ also fulfilled one of the promises in the covenant God made with Abraham found in Genesis 15.I am truly amazed Shiloh how you have twisted the scriptures to you liking. You make it sound good but what you are saying is not backed up in the bible and you give no scripture that confirms the things you say except when you give scripture and then twist it's meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted April 14, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted April 14, 2015 Hi Openly Curious, In the New Covenant, through Christ`s blood sacrifice, what promises do you see for the Body of Christ, for Israel & for the nations? Marilyn.All the promises of God in Christ are YES and AMEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts