# Are we living fully in the New Covenant?



## pkananen

Would you say that we are fully living in the New Covenant era? Obviously I know that Christ's death on the cross was the initiation of the New Covenant. But when I read the promise of the law being written on our hearts in Jeremiah 31, I also see that we are to expect that we have no need to "teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD." Although we have the spirit in us that allows us to desire God's law, I also know that it is truly not written on my heart in such a way that I do not daily have to remind myself to "Know the Lord".

Jeremiah 31


> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”



In other words, it seems this passage is essentially describing the new heavens and the new earth, and the glorified state in which we will exist, living in perfect communion with God. Is it wrong to say the New Covenant era in its fullness is the age to come? How does covenant theology understand this distinction, if it does at all?


----------



## arapahoepark

Luke 22:20 In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.


----------



## pkananen

arap said:


> Luke 22:20 In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.



Exactly, the covenant was initiated. Christ performed his priestly role and sat down at the right hand of the Father. But the promises of the New Covenant seem to not yet have fully arrived.


----------



## arapahoepark

pkananen said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 22:20 In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, the covenant was initiated. Christ performed his priestly role and sat down at the right hand of the Father. But the promises of the New Covenant seem to not yet have fully arrived.
Click to expand...


How?
There is a new exodus from the bondage of sin and the spirit dwells with in us. We are the people of God, the reconstituted Israel who are justified by faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Peter, 
We call it: the Already; and the Not Yet. Inauguration and Consummation of both kingdom and covenant.

Trent, we're out of Egypt, but now in the wilderness, still on the way to the Promised Land.

The expectation perspective of the Old Covenant era constantly sets side by side 1) Messiah's arrival and the setting up of his kingdom, and 2) the immediate fulfillment of all the highest hopes and expectations of that kingdom. There are a host of utterly irreconcilable facts that accompany the expectation, items which cannot possibly be disentangled from the perspective prior to the Messianic age.

Such as: the Messiah must be cut off, and the Messiah remains forever. On the face of it, these two expectations appear completely at odds. Or, how can the Messiah be despised and rejected, and be the glory of his people Israel and desire of all the nations?

We are living in days of grace, an era of opportunity to receive entrance into a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Messiah has come, and achieved an impossible victory. He has overturned his enemies' rebellion, frustrated their plots, turning their triumph on its head, making their curse (hanging him on a tree) the indispensable sacrifice for the sin of the world. He triumphs over his foes in the cross.

In the resurrection and ascension, the true Son of David is "adopted" (this day I have begotten you) and enthroned as the Father's Agent. He sends forth his angels to the ends of the earth to gather his elect. Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way. An end of Justice' reprieve and offers of mercy is nearer now than ever. Today is the day of salvation.

The consummated kingdom is the time when perfection reigns. That's heaven (new heavens/earth). We (the church militant) are not in heaven yet.


----------



## johnny

Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology. 
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology. 
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.


----------



## Peairtach

pkananen said:


> Would you say that we are fully living in the New Covenant era? Obviously I know that Christ's death on the cross was the initiation of the New Covenant. But when I read the promise of the law being written on our hearts in Jeremiah 31, I also see that we are to expect that we have no need to "teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD." Although we have the spirit in us that allows us to desire God's law, I also know that it is truly not written on my heart in such a way that I do not daily have to remind myself to "Know the Lord".
> 
> Jeremiah 31
> 
> 
> 
> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, it seems this passage is essentially describing the new heavens and the new earth, and the glorified state in which we will exist, living in perfect communion with God. Is it wrong to say the New Covenant era in its fullness is the age to come? How does covenant theology understand this distinction, if it does at all?
Click to expand...


The passage which speaks about the end of teaching is speaking about the end of the mediatorial functions of prophet, priest and king in the Church. All true believers are prophets, priests and kings - spiritually speaking - in the New Testament era, and we are taught by the Lord Himself, Christ Jesus, whom we know. Cf. also e.g. Joel 2:28. Mediatorial distinctions which were basic the the Old Testament/Mosaic Administration are ended.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## pkananen

Contra_Mundum said:


> Peter,
> We call it: the Already; and the Not Yet. Inauguration and Consummation of both kingdom and covenant.
> 
> Trent, we're out of Egypt, but now in the wilderness, still on the way to the Promised Land.
> 
> The expectation perspective of the Old Covenant era constantly sets side by side 1) Messiah's arrival and the setting up of his kingdom, and 2) the immediate fulfillment of all the highest hopes and expectations of that kingdom. There are a host of utterly irreconcilable facts that accompany the expectation, items which cannot possibly be disentangled from the perspective prior to the Messianic age.
> 
> Such as: the Messiah must be cut off, and the Messiah remains forever. On the face of it, these two expectations appear completely at odds. Or, how can the Messiah be despised and rejected, and be the glory of his people Israel and desire of all the nations?
> 
> We are living in days of grace, an era of opportunity to receive entrance into a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Messiah has come, and achieved an impossible victory. He has overturned his enemies' rebellion, frustrated their plots, turning their triumph on its head, making their curse (hanging him on a tree) the indispensable sacrifice for the sin of the world. He triumphs over his foes in the cross.
> 
> In the resurrection and ascension, the true Son of David is "adopted" (this day I have begotten you) and enthroned as the Father's Agent. He sends forth his angels to the ends of the earth to gather his elect. Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way. An end of Justice' reprieve and offers of mercy is nearer now than ever. Today is the day of salvation.
> 
> The consummated kingdom is the time when perfection reigns. That's heaven (new heavens/earth). We (the church militant) are not in heaven yet.



Yes, this is my understanding as well. I'm very familiar with the "already, not yet" fulfillment and I agree it fits within the OT promise of the New Covenant.


----------



## pkananen

johnny said:


> Hello Peter,
> 
> Is it a fair comment to say.
> That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
> I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
> I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
> And build on the rock and not in the sand.



I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.



> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.



God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

pkananen said:


> How do we reconcile *this* with Covenant Theology?


If we understand correctly what is being stated by Jeremiah, Paul, and the rest, there's no _reconciliation_ required, because covenant Theology IS what the Bible teaches.

One of the first realities that needs to be wrestled with is the Exile. The Exile brought in a _ruined _state of affairs. We need to understand the ruin of the Exile in parallel with the ruin of the original Fall. Adam and Eve cast out of Paradise parallels the people of God cast out of the Land. And just as God's ultimate intent for the human race is not derailed in the beginning, neither is God's ultimate intent for his typological people derailed. And just as another covenant is introduced on the post-edenic stage, "not like" the first covenant of works; so another covenant is promised to the Old Covenant people post-exile that will not be like the Sinaic covenant.

The Exile is as much a devastation of the covenant relationship God has with the chosen people, as the first Exile from Eden devastates the basic relation the human race has with its Maker. But God is not done with humanity, and he's not done with Israel. It will, however, take a new covenant to fully restore what went wrong.

This is what Jesus does when he goes to the cross. He inaugurates the New Covenant in his blood. The last administration of the Covenant of Grace has begun.


When God promises through the prophets to call his scattered, old covenant people back after they broke his covenant--as he had indicated he would do as far back as Moses--he doesn't do so "alone." Isaiah's concluding chapters are full of this. For example, Is.49:22, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to *the peoples*; and *they *shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on *their *shoulders." 60:4,10, "Lift up your eyes all around, and see; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.... *Foreigners *shall build up your walls, and *their kings* shall minister to you; for in my wrath I struck you, but in my favor I have had mercy on you."

When the Lord scatters his people among the Gentiles, they become no-people (Hos.1:9); they cease to have any externally recognizable differentiation. They wanted to be Gentiles, so the Lord gives them what they want, Ezk.20:23,25; v26, "I pronounced them unclean." It is interesting to note, that he _*also*_ refuses to give them what they want, v32ff. He promises them a practical repeat of the first Exodus.

The point of the Restoration--whether taught by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah--is that when the Lord brings his strangers Home again, they do not come out alone. They come out arm-in-arm with Gentiles, carried by Gentiles, surrounded by Gentiles. They lost their pure differentiation. But their election was always according to grace, and God promised Abraham a great posterity which began with real flesh-and-blood. It is as though in scattering them, their visible status as "chosen" is both lost, but also diffused. And in their summons, these are not extracted like a magnet over sand pulling out the iron filings, and leaving the inert dust behind. But with the elect remnant come the residue of the nations, and the promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations is fulfilled.

Not as though it did not happen before. In the original Exodus, the same nucleus of the Holy Family (now many thousands in number) is surrounded by a "mixed multitude" of Gentiles--Egyptians, Edomites, etc.--all seeking escape from the Land of Death. All which prefer forsaking their worthless idols, and a madman of a king, to align with the cause of these Israelites who's God is bringing them out to save them. "Save us, also!" All these swore to keep covenant at the Mount, and were incorporated into Israel's tribes.


Another reality, not enough appreciated, is that Israel is reducible to One Person. The "house of Israel [meaning but part of Israel as a whole] and the house of Judah [the rest of Israel as a whole]" are only what they are by union with the One who will inherit all his father's estate. Which is to say, that the New Covenant is ultimately made between Christ, the true Israel, the Seed, the Vine; and God Almighty. That's the true nature of this promised covenant, and indeed of _*all*_ the covenants. The covenant of grace is first made with Christ, and all the elect as his seed, West. Larger Cat. #31.

So, in Old Covenant terms, when God by his prophet speaks to his church, it is perfectly reasonable for him to use common language describing the church of that era: "house of Israel, house of Judah." That is a name for the people of God in the Old Testament.

It is not the case that when the New Covenant day arrives, that the people of God in the New Covenant era must somehow distinguish between two fundamentally different "kinds" of people: those in the New Covenant who are "house of Israel/Judah" and those who are of "house of Gentiles." All those who are "grafted in" are not grafted into anything like a preexisting nation or _people_, but into ONE PERSON. The distinction Paul makes between a "natural" branch and a "wild" branch (Rom.11:21,24) to explain their *origin*, does not extend to distinguishing between branches *altogether* grafted into Christ.

Finally, in Rom.9:4, Paul does not affirm aught except that the holy nation up to that time was the most blessed and privileged on the face of the earth. They were the home of the patriarchs (v5) which should bring forth the Savior of the world, and the adoption (esp. a royalty designation), the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises. The New Covenant is an element of Israel's birthright, one which they should be falling over themselves in their haste to lay hold of it. And yet, they (inexplicably?) do not. This is Paul's great grief with respect to them. They should be in the first rank, but they reject the gospel instead. What a tragedy.

But, even this is still part of the plan. Jewish/Israelite pride will serve a greater end. And in the end, they will abandon that pride and take up their place in the redeemed whole.



That's the teaching of the Bible, and Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## pkananen

You use a lot of words 



Contra_Mundum said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we reconcile *this* with Covenant Theology?
> 
> 
> 
> If we understand correctly what is being stated by Jeremiah, Paul, and the rest, there's no _reconciliation_ required, because covenant Theology IS what the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...

Um, ok. I'm not saying it doesn't, but that alone is circular reasoning.



Contra_Mundum said:


> One of the first realities that needs to be wrestled with is the Exile. The Exile brought in a _ruined _state of affairs. We need to understand the ruin of the Exile in parallel with the ruin of the original Fall. Adam and Eve cast out of Paradise parallels the people of God cast out of the Land. And just as God's ultimate intent for the human race is not derailed in the beginning, neither is God's ultimate intent for his typological people derailed. And just as another covenant is introduced on the post-edenic stage, "not like" the first covenant of works; so another covenant is promised to the Old Covenant people post-exile that will not be like the Sinaic covenant.
> 
> The Exile is as much a devastation of the covenant relationship God has with the chosen people, as the first Exile from Eden devastates the basic relation the human race has with its Maker. But God is not done with humanity, and he's not done with Israel. It will, however, take a new covenant to fully restore what went wrong.
> 
> 
> This is what Jesus does when he goes to the cross. He inaugurates the New Covenant in his blood. The last administration of the Covenant of Grace has begun.


Agreed.




Contra_Mundum said:


> When God promises through the prophets to call his scattered, old covenant people back after they broke his covenant--as he had indicated he would do as far back as Moses--he doesn't do so "alone." Isaiah's concluding chapters are full of this. For example, Is.49:22, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to *the peoples*; and *they *shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on *their *shoulders." 60:4,10, "Lift up your eyes all around, and see; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.... *Foreigners *shall build up your walls, and *their kings* shall minister to you; for in my wrath I struck you, but in my favor I have had mercy on you."
> 
> When the Lord scatters his people among the Gentiles, they become no-people (Hos.1:9); they cease to have any externally recognizable differentiation. They wanted to be Gentiles, so the Lord gives them what they want, Ezk.20:23,25; v26, "I pronounced them unclean." It is interesting to note, that he _*also*_ refuses to give them what they want, v32ff. He promises them a practical repeat of the first Exodus.
> 
> The point of the Restoration--whether taught by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah--is that when the Lord brings his strangers Home again, they do not come out alone. They come out arm-in-arm with Gentiles, carried by Gentiles, surrounded by Gentiles.


Agreed.



Contra_Mundum said:


> They lost their pure differentiation. But their election was always according to grace, and God promised Abraham a great posterity which began with real flesh-and-blood. It is as though in scattering them, their visible status as "chosen" is both lost, but also diffused. And in their summons, these are not extracted like a magnet over sand pulling out the iron filings, and leaving the inert dust behind. But with the elect remnant come the residue of the nations, and the promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations is fulfilled.


I agree with most of this, but I disagree that their 'chosen' status is lost. How can a covenant with them be revoked? Is that not what 'chosen' means? Indeed, Gentiles did join the nation of Israel as converts in the OT. They were surely saved by grace alone through faith. But there was never a covenant made with these Gentiles, by God. In my view, this does NOT mean they are not elect. They absolutely were, but their election was not explicitly mentioned in God's covenant. Yes, we understand them as the spiritual seed of Abraham. I do not argue with this.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Not as though it did not happen before. In the original Exodus, the same nucleus of the Holy Family (now many thousands in number) is surrounded by a "mixed multitude" of Gentiles--Egyptians, Edomites, etc.--all seeking escape from the Land of Death. All which prefer forsaking their worthless idols, and a madman of a king, to align with the cause of these Israelites who's God is bringing them out to save them. "Save us, also!" All these swore to keep covenant at the Mount, and were incorporated into Israel's tribes.


I agree with this.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Another reality, not enough appreciated, is that Israel is reducible to One Person. The "house of Israel [meaning but part of Israel as a whole] and the house of Judah [the rest of Israel as a whole]" are only what they are by union with the One who will inherit all his father's estate.


I agree that only by union with Christ will they inherit anything, but I do not agree that Israel is reducible to one person.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Which is to say, that the New Covenant is ultimately made between Christ, the true Israel, the Seed, the Vine; and God Almighty. That's the true nature of this promised covenant, and indeed of _*all*_ the covenants. The covenant of grace is first made with Christ, and all the elect as his seed, West. Larger Cat. #31.


But this is not what Jeremiah 31 says. The covenant is made explicitly with the House of Israel and Jacob, and as evidence of this God says he will write his law on the hearts of those to whom the covenant applies. And, in fact, we are reminded again that this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.



Contra_Mundum said:


> So, in Old Covenant terms, when God by his prophet speaks to his church, it is perfectly reasonable for him to use common language describing the church of that era: "house of Israel, house of Judah." That is a name for the people of God in the Old Testament.


I would argue that there is no loss or change of the name of the people of God in the New Testament, just that today the wild branches greatly outnumber the natural branches. And, in Christ, there is no need for Gentiles to join the nation of Israel.



Contra_Mundum said:


> It is not the case that when the New Covenant day arrives, that the people of God in the New Covenant era must somehow distinguish between two fundamentally different "kinds" of people: those in the New Covenant who are "house of Israel/Judah" and those who are of "house of Gentiles." All those who are "grafted in" are not grafted into anything like a preexisting nation or _people_, but into ONE PERSON. The distinction Paul makes between a "natural" branch and a "wild" branch (Rom.11:21,24) to explain their *origin*, does not extend to distinguishing between branches *altogether* grafted into Christ.


Paul's usage of natural branches loses meaning in your argument, especially since natural branches are not grafted in unless they are first broken off! There are indeed natural branches that were not broken off, as Paul says in 11:17. Now, in Christ, there is no class by which natural branches are superior, but Paul's rule in all of the churches was that calling was to remain Jew and Gentile. And likewise we do not see that the Jewish apostles abandoned Jewish worship according to the Torah.




Contra_Mundum said:


> Finally, in Rom.9:4, Paul does not affirm aught except that the holy nation up to that time was the most blessed and privileged on the face of the earth. They were the home of the patriarchs (v5) which should bring forth the Savior of the world, and the adoption (esp. a royalty designation), the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises. The New Covenant is an element of Israel's birthright, one which they should be falling over themselves in their haste to lay hold of it. And yet, they (inexplicably?) do not. This is Paul's great grief with respect to them. They should be in the first rank, but they reject the gospel instead. What a tragedy.


But it is clear not that Israel just happened to be the home of the covenants, but that the covenants were made with them! They alone are named as the explicit physical recipients of the covenants and promises. There is a subtle distinction here, and I feel like you're trying to downplay the ownership of the covenants by them, as opposed to them just being the vehicle, with the covenants as accidental cargo.

It is indeed a tragedy, and astonishingly, one that has resulted in the salvation of much of the world. Sadly, we have also caused his people great grief and sorrow through our past wrongs, and we must work hard to provoke them to jealousy. I would argue that make this easier by acknowledging that what God has promised them. I am thankful that based on your comment below you seem to understand this.



Contra_Mundum said:


> But, even this is still part of the plan. Jewish/Israelite pride will serve a greater end. And in the end, they will abandon that pride and take up their place in the redeemed whole.






Contra_Mundum said:


> That's the teaching of the Bible, and Covenant Theology.


I agree with most things you have said here. I'm not sure how big our differences are in totality.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> But this is not what Jeremiah 31 says. The covenant is made explicitly with the House of Israel and Jacob, and as evidence of this God says he will write his law on the hearts of those to whom the covenant applies. And, in fact, we are reminded again that this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.


So we're talking about the Ishmaelites and the Samartians, correct?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> I'm not sure how big our differences are.



I would say that whereever you disagree and miss that the Abhrahamic Promise is to those who are sons not of the flesh but of Promise then you have missed Covenant theology at the core.


----------



## pkananen

On a related note, I found a previous thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/83018-Jeremiah-31-31-34-amp-Infant-Baptism that addresses some of these same questions. It was helpful.


I'll move on to verses 33-34:



> 33*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”



This portion of the New Covenant makes it quite clear that we are not living in its fullness. This indicates the people of God living in communion with him in a way that does not require the reminder to crucify the flesh to obey God's law, and to provoke our brothers to faith.

Also, we know this description does not fit the nation of Israel today. Based on this passage, we would expect that all of Israel would be walking with the Lord. We look forward to Paul's words in Romans 11:26-27:



> 26*And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
> 
> “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
> he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
> 27* “and this will be my covenant with them
> when I take away their sins.”



I would argue that this passage is a clear description of the age to come.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this is not what Jeremiah 31 says. The covenant is made explicitly with the House of Israel and Jacob, and as evidence of this God says he will write his law on the hearts of those to whom the covenant applies. And, in fact, we are reminded again that this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.
> 
> 
> 
> So we're talking about the Ishmaelites and the Samartians, correct?
Click to expand...


I would argue you are committing a logical fallacy here. Galatians 4 clearly shows how not all of the physical sons are sons of the promise. However, that does NOT mean that sons of the promise are not physical sons. They are indeed! Again, this is based on God's spoken covenants. I see a clear distinction between these spoken covenants and those to whom it applies and God's act of election. Clearly, all who are elect have a covenant from God, but this is not literally the covenant made with Abraham, and spoken of in Jeremiah 31.

Here's an example to illustrate what I am saying.

If after this day in history, no more Gentiles were appointed to salvation, it would not contradict God's promises. (Think of this as the 'fullness of the Gentiles'). However, if no more Israelites were appointed to salvation, it WOULD contradict God's promises.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how big our differences are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that whereever you disagree and miss that the Abhrahamic Promise is to those who are sons not of the flesh but of Promise then you have missed Covenant theology at the core.
Click to expand...


And I would argue that to whatever degree you think the covenants AREN'T made to Abraham's physical sons, you are at danger of being an arrogant wild branch. Paul warned explicitly against this.

I'm more interested in heeding Paul's warning, rather than offending a theological theory. Granted, I think that most of Covenant Theology is indeed correct, but it is not infallible and I believe its position towards Israel is a spiritual danger.


----------



## Peairtach

pkananen said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Is it a fair comment to say.
> That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
> I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
> I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
> And build on the rock and not in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.
> 
> Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
Click to expand...


The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".



> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.



But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.

The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.



> There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
> the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
> and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)


----------



## pkananen

Peairtach said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Is it a fair comment to say.
> That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
> I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
> I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
> And build on the rock and not in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.
> 
> Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.
> 
> The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
> the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
> and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> I would argue you are committing a logical fallacy here. Galatians 4 clearly shows how not all of the physical sons are sons of the promise. However, that does NOT mean that sons of the promise are not physical sons. They are indeed! Again, this is based on God's spoken covenants. I see a clear distinction between these spoken covenants and those to whom it applies and God's act of election. Clearly, all who are elect have a covenant from God, but this is not literally the covenant made with Abraham, and spoken of in Jeremiah 31.



Peter,

I find it actually sad to see how you have some ability to absolutize God's promise for one group and not another. If, as you keep claiming, God's promise not failing has specific referent to the people to whom it was made _at the time the Lord made the Promise_ then, by definition, Samaritans are no less of the "House of Israel". 

I am not being "arrogant" about branches being broken off. There may still be natural branches that will be grafted back in but that is different than stating that the ultimate referent in Jeremiah 31 (Hebrews 8) is physical descendants. I believe that Christ, and those in Him, are the ultimate referent. You will say to me "How can this be and pound the table and exclaim 'House of Judah! House of Israel!"

To which I'll just say "Samaritans and Galatians 3" and then you'll change your tune as to how "absolute" prophetic language is in the Old Testament and I'll say: "Precisely so. Physician, heal thyself."


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue you are committing a logical fallacy here. Galatians 4 clearly shows how not all of the physical sons are sons of the promise. However, that does NOT mean that sons of the promise are not physical sons. They are indeed! Again, this is based on God's spoken covenants. I see a clear distinction between these spoken covenants and those to whom it applies and God's act of election. Clearly, all who are elect have a covenant from God, but this is not literally the covenant made with Abraham, and spoken of in Jeremiah 31.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I find it actually sad to see how you have some ability to absolutize God's promise for one group and not another. If, as you keep claiming, God's promise not failing has specific referent to the people to whom it was made _at the time the Lord made the Promise_ then, by definition, Samaritans are no less of the "House of Israel".
> 
> I am not being "arrogant" about branches being broken off. There may still be natural branches that will be grafted back in but that is different than stating that the ultimate referent in Jeremiah 31 (Hebrews 8) is physical descendants. I believe that Christ, and those in Him, are the ultimate referent. You will say to me "How can this be and pound the table and exclaim 'House of Judah! House of Israel!"
> 
> To which I'll just say "Samaritans and Galatians 3" and then you'll change your tune as to how "absolute" prophetic language is in the Old Testament and I'll say: "Precisely so. Physician, heal thyself."
Click to expand...


Why should it be sad? Is that not the mystery of election that we cling to? I am not absolutizing anything. I'm only asking that you not relativize God's words. His words were exact.

I didn't pound my fist, I showed how you are committing a logical fallacy in your assertion.

You are comfortable changing the meaning of God's words in Jeremiah 31. I am not comfortable with that. Paul said the covenants belong to Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. You don't like that idea. The hermeneutic you are using requires changing the meaning of God's words, but fits nicely into a system. I'd prefer to use a theological system by which I do not have to alter the meaning of God's words. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this, but I cannot in good conscience say that your reading does not require a change in what God says.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> Why should it be sad? Is that not the mystery of election that we cling to? I am not absolutizing anything. I'm only asking that you not relativize God's words. His words were exact.
> 
> I didn't pound my fist, I showed how you are committing a logical fallacy in your assertion.
> 
> You are comfortable changing the meaning of God's words in Jeremiah 31. I am not comfortable with that. Paul said the covenants belong to Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. You don't like that idea. The hermeneutic you are using requires changing the meaning of God's words, but fits nicely into a system. I'd prefer to use a theological system by which I do not have to alter the meaning of God's words. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this, but I cannot in good conscience say that your reading does not require a change in what God says.



Peter,

You are terribly naive if you think you are avoiding presuppositions. You apparently haven't studied hermeneutics to any large degree.

My point is that *you* are doing the same thing you're accusing me of. I can quote a verse that makes the Promise to Abraham's descendants in Genesis and then chide you for "relativizing" God's Word when you don't include the Samaritans or the Edomites or the Ishmaelites.

You'll then respond with Scripture that further illuminates that the true _objects_ of that Promise were clarified by Revelation that follows.

Exactly.

Thus, the problem here is not relativizing of God's Promises but _understanding_ them in light of New Testament revelation.

Paul speaks in many ways in Romans and Galatians that unstable men twist to their destruction. Paul also says in Romans of the advantage the Jew has in having the oracles of God. By this he is not saying that his kinsmen have the oracles in distinction from the Church but speaks in a historical manner concerning their possession of these oracles. In noting that the Covenants belong to his kinsmen he is speaking historically - not to make absolute their possession as if to overthrow what he has already said about election - but to point out that, from an external perspective, the Covenant Promise does belong to them even as they have broken it and been cut off. It is precisely the same notion as in Hebrews and the warning to the Church. One must press in the the Covenant promises of which he has been externally joined unto. The Covenant *belongs* to a baptized man in the sense that he is under its administration (even if externally) but that does not mean that the substance of that Covenant (which is in Christ) is _his_ Covenant.

It is really sad how your focus on the Covenant will actually veil your vision of the internal/external distinction of the Covenant relates to you and your own family.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should it be sad? Is that not the mystery of election that we cling to? I am not absolutizing anything. I'm only asking that you not relativize God's words. His words were exact.
> 
> I didn't pound my fist, I showed how you are committing a logical fallacy in your assertion.
> 
> You are comfortable changing the meaning of God's words in Jeremiah 31. I am not comfortable with that. Paul said the covenants belong to Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. You don't like that idea. The hermeneutic you are using requires changing the meaning of God's words, but fits nicely into a system. I'd prefer to use a theological system by which I do not have to alter the meaning of God's words. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this, but I cannot in good conscience say that your reading does not require a change in what God says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> You are terribly naive if you think you are avoiding presuppositions. You apparently haven't studied hermeneutics to any large degree.
> 
> My point is that *you* are doing the same thing you're accusing me of. I can quote a verse that makes the Promise to Abraham's descendants in Genesis and then chide you for "relativizing" God's Word when you don't include the Samaritans or the Edomites or the Ishmaelites.
> 
> You'll then respond with Scripture that further illuminates that the true _objects_ of that Promise were clarified by Revelation that follows.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Thus, the problem here is not relativizing of God's Promises but _understanding_ them in light of New Testament revelation.
> 
> Paul speaks in many ways in Romans and Galatians that unstable men twist to their destruction. Paul also says in Romans of the advantage the Jew has in having the oracles of God. By this he is not saying that his kinsmen have the oracles in distinction from the Church but speaks in a historical manner concerning their possession of these oracles. In noting that the Covenants belong to his kinsmen he is speaking historically - not to make absolute their possession as if to overthrow what he has already said about election - but to point out that, from an external perspective, the Covenant Promise does belong to them even as they have broken it and been cut off. It is precisely the same notion as in Hebrews and the warning to the Church. One must press in the the Covenant promises of which he has been externally joined unto. The Covenant *belongs* to a baptized man in the sense that he is under its administration (even if externally) but that does not mean that the substance of that Covenant (which is in Christ) is _his_ Covenant.
> 
> It is really sad how your focus on the Covenant will actually veil your vision of the internal/external distinction of the Covenant relates to you and your own family.
Click to expand...


The primary reason I am arguing that we need to reconsider a Jewish perspective on these issues is to remove preconceptions that we have. We have 2000 years of church history under our belt. There are presuppositions in this history that we must examine. Does it occur to you that a Israel-centric view of God's covenants may be difficult for you to accept when the Protestant church has as one of its greatest heroes someone who advocated burning the homes and synagogues of Jews? I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.



I'm sorry but your command of Church history is really poor if you think that the Reformation and all of Church history can be summarized by Martin Luther. You'll have to do a lot better than that.

You're assuming a hermeneutical "reset" is necessary. You're imbibing the hermeneutic of the heretic. That doesn't make you a heretic but it implies that the Church has been without the witness of the Spirit for 2000 years and now you (and a handful of people) know what Jesus and the Apostles *really* meant.

Why should I be heeding you? Why not N.T. Wright? Why not E.P. Sander? Why not Karl Barth?


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Hear, Hear! That is, indeed, the key to avoiding a theological nosedive.




Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how big our differences are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that whereever you disagree and miss that the Abhrahamic Promise is to those who are sons not of the flesh but of Promise then you have missed Covenant theology at the core.
Click to expand...


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Peter,

You wrote: I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?

Luther, as is well known, had some problematic thoughts in this area. However, to accuse him, after he's been in the grave for hundreds of years, of being a precursor and inspiration for Reinhard Heydrich, is inexcusable.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Peter,

To echo a sentiment from another thread involving intertwined issues with this one, The Book of Hebrews seems to hold the answer to many of your most pressing questions--all of which are profitable for discussion and debate btw. 

Heb. 8:13--In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

This shows that the Old Covenant is obsolete. If the Old Covenant is obsolete, then logically, we must be living "fully" in the New Covenant. As others have pointed out, the glories and benificences of the eternal state have, obviously, not occurred. But we aren't floating in covenantal vacuum. 

Hebrews 9;13-16--13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.



Peter,

While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?

Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?

Thank you...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

pkananen said:


> You use a lot of words


Whatever. 



pkananen said:


> How can a covenant with them be revoked?


In substance, it is a covenant with faith, not with unbelief. In administration, it is a covenant with the visible church, a mixture of (hidden) elect and reprobate. God cut off LOTS of people under the Old Covenant--faithless covenant breakers. He "revoked" their covenant blessings, which were not mixed with faith, Heb.4:2.

God did not revoke covenant with the remnant according to faith, because his covenant with them is IN Christ. Always in Christ. God doesn't revoke his covenant with his church insofar as it contains the pure elect within it, who are the seed of Christ. With them he revokes nothing, because in Christ all the promises are Yea and Amen. Here's where we will never come to an agreement: we deny there is a permanent covenant with some earthly, biological/religious partition of humanity, exclusive of others even when they have a common faith altogether, a common Object of faith and worship.



pkananen said:


> Gentiles did join the nation of Israel as converts in the OT. They were surely saved by grace alone through faith. But there was never a covenant made with these Gentiles


You deny that _*covenant*_ (the Old Covenant!) was made with OT Gentile converts. That is... incredible. It is beyond belief.

How do you get around Sinai?!? Where is that host of foreigners come out of Egypt, if not incorporated into the mass, and all swearing at the same time to the same covenant? Before then, how do you get around Gen.17, and the sign of the covenant applied to more than 318 men who are in no wise descended of Abraham?

When Gentiles _joined_ with the children of Israel, forsaking their old identities and embracing the life of faith in Jehovah, they became _Israelites_. They were summoned to the feasts, and all the rest of the religious life at the center of the national awareness at its best. For 1400yrs, these converts affirmed with all the rest, in the 10 Commandments, they were slaves in Egypt, Dt.5:6,15; in the Passover, "He delivered our houses," Ex.12:27; and in the Firstfruits, Dt.26:5-10."A Syrian ready to perish was *my *father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous: And the Egyptians evil entreated *us*, and afflicted *us*, and laid upon *us *hard bondage: And when *we *cried unto the LORD God of *our *fathers, the LORD heard *our *voice, and looked on *our *affliction, and *our *labour, and *our *oppression: And the LORD brought *us *forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders: And he hath brought *us *into this place, and hath given *us *this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land, which thou, O LORD, hast given me."​Don't tell me these people had no covenant with Jehovah--through Abraham their father, the patriarchs, and Moses. In the Day of Atonement, "For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among *his people*," Lev.23:29. To which people did they belong?

According to the imperfect representation of the church in the world, covenant may be, and has been revoked. Never more evidently than in the Exile. The visible church-state of Israel/Judah is _so far gone_ as to their ability to typify God's perfect people before the world, that he casts them off. A regathering is promised, thank God for it. The remnant hopes for it, prays for it. God even brings some people back to the land as a kind of "firstfruits" of a greater harvest. There's a glimmer of life in the moribund visible OT church. But Daniel's prophecy is clear: only Messiah's appearance will bring an end to the Days of Indignation.



pkananen said:


> I do not agree that Israel is reducible to one person.


Why? Who is the one, true Israelite? Who alone obeyed all the law, and donated that obedience to the record of his seed, who have nothing else to commend them? Gal.3:16, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of ONE, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Mt.2:15, "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son," speaking of one, namely Jesus.



pkananen said:


> this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.


Why should an OTJew try to make converts? "Come to glory, where you can be our water-carriers and hewers of wood. Hey! it's better than hell, right?" Sounds like the current crop of JWs, these who promote a "second class" kingdom citizenship (because heaven already has its 144K maximum).

This idea that there are exclusively earthly promises, things that belong to an exclusive club, and the only way to get into it is by birth. Scripture deplores this concept. It's horrible. It promotes pride. Moses and the prophets don't support such an understanding. The NT positively rubbishes it. No, the covenant is with the church, specifically with believers in the church, OT and NT; and not with a pure physical race, even when that race is reduced to the believers of that race.

And how is it made with the church, whether OT or NT? Only in and through Christ, the only one who actually obtains the inheritance directly.




pkananen said:


> Paul's usage of natural branches loses meaning in your argument


Nonsense. To make your point, you have to reverse the significance of the branch's origin. How does the "natural" branch get its identity? Because it was once IN THE VINE. Does the branch support the root, or the root the branch?, Rom.11:18. Paul says not a whisper about continuing significance of branches IN THE VINE, which have different origins.



pkananen said:


> Paul's rule in all of the churches was that calling was to remain Jew and Gentile.


Prove. Not only is this NOT a rule, all the evidence runs the other way, to a diminishing of all distinctions. Eph.2 has already been mentioned. Gal.3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek." Rom.10:12, "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek." Col.3:11, "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision." Over and over and over again.

The reason for distinctive ethnic identity for the church under the Old Covenant is done. It's finished. Something better has come. God has not "cast off his _foreknown_ people, Rom.11:2. Who are these people? Does Paul refer to _ethnicity_ here? No, but to election _out of_ the ethnic class. That is the exclusive NT meaning of the verb "foreknow" when referring to humans--personal, electing love. Here in ch.11, Paul culminates his argument begun in ch.9 to answer the objection: that apparently God's declaration and will to save had limits, because "look at Israel's spurning this grace, their election."

The objection has only surface plausibility. It assumes the coextensive application of external identity (chosen people) and inward grace (savingly elect). Paul then goes to work explaining how there never was any such coextensive relation. "They are not all [true] Israel, who are of [i.e. are ethnically/religiously affiliated with] Israel," Rom.9:6. And then he goes to prove it in the rest of the ch. from the OT. And explains the nature and work of the external call in combination with the internal call in ch.10. And finally, in ch.11, goes on to rejoice that God is still in the business of calling his elect even from the ethnic Jews. He's not abandoned that crew, even though the church-state as a whole refused to acclaim Jesus Messiah.

As a member of that ethnic group, Paul (and all the original believers) had a broken heart for their brethren after the flesh. Who doesn't care about their family, especially if that family, that clan, that nation is largely heading down to perdition?

It is right to care about your family. It is right to care about the US nation, or some part thereof, and pray for their salvation. I was a missionary kid once; and because I was, I have a personal care and burden about Egyptians, and Arabs generally. Scripture advises us to remember the ethnic stock of the Twelve Tribes, and pray for their salvation; for they once constituted virtually the whole of the world's great hope for salvation. And when it arrived, they were mostly blind to it.

It would be too easy to write them off. So, we are urged not to do it. They need prayer. But not so they will continue forever (even after salvation) to maintain their exclusive pride-of-place (as if they had such). But to glory not in patrimony, or in circumcision, or anything except Christ.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

This is a little bit off topic, but I think a good time to bring it up:

LC 31 says the covenant of grace was made with the "elect." But we believe in a mixed covenant in this world as well as a perfect covenant, right (Jer 31)? So if the covenant of grace was always made with the "elect" only, from Genesis 3 to Christ, are non-elect children still considered being in covenant with God? If so, how, if the covenant is truly only between God and the elect? Is the administration just different on this side of eternity? Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> This is a little bit off topic, but I think a good time to bring it up:
> 
> LC 31 says the covenant of grace was made with the "elect." But we believe in a mixed covenant in this world as well as a perfect covenant, right (Jer 31)? So if the covenant of grace was always made with the "elect" only, from Genesis 3 to Christ, are non-elect children still considered being in covenant with God? If so, how, if the covenant is truly only between God and the elect? Is the administration just different on this side of eternity? Thanks.



Not off topic. It's actually refreshing to deal with a genuine question.

Christ is set forth as the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace and, as Mediator, executes the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.

The Church of Jesus Christ is the visible Kingdom of God and consists of those who have made profession of him as well as their Covenant children.

In this visible Kingdom, the Church, the Lord's Prophetic office is exhibited in the ministers of the Word who proclaim the Gospel as the Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son, works through the Word to convict and convert. The Lord's Kingly office is exhibited visibly by Church discipline and the binding and loosing.

Thus, the historical reality of the Covenant and the ingathering of the elect is accomplished through the Church's ministry of Word, Sacrament, and Discipline. The sacrament of baptism demarcks those who are in the visible Kingdom of God but the Spirit sovreignly confers the graces of the sign signfied to the elect through the Word. Thus, it can be said that all baptized members are visible members of the Kingdom of Christ but not all are united to Him by faith even though Word and Sacrament are means to that end.


----------



## MW

Clark-Tillian said:


> Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.



Well noted! The fact there is "no more offering for sin" is conclusive that we are fully under the new covenant. This is further confirmed by the warning of vv. 28-29, "He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

If the context were permitted to inform us of the meaning of "teach his neighbour," it would be obvious that this refers to the mediatorial actions of prophets and priests, two offices that were repeatedly charged by the ministry of Jeremiah with leading the people astray.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> are non-elect children still considered being in covenant with God?


When were they ever in covenant with God, except through an administrative relation, as opposed to a substantive one?

Yes, as long as men (sinners) administer the covenant, as long as there is a church in the world with officers and ordinances, there will be _imperfect_ administration of covenant blessings and identity.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

So Reverend Bruce, do you conclude that unregenerate people in the church including believers' children are not actually considered in covenant with God? My mind has recently been opened up to an understanding that there are Presbyterians who believe the new covenant is not mixed by any means, but only the visible administration of it is. Is this what you hold to? Thanks


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> do you conclude that unregenerate people in the church including believers' children are not actually considered in covenant with God?...
> 
> there are Presbyterians who believe the new covenant is not mixed by any means, but only the visible administration of it is.


There can be lack of clarity or unity addressing the topic; but in the end, more agreement than not, more apparent difference than real.

What is the meaning of the phrase, "_actually_... in covenant?" If this language is meant to convey the notion: _full possession of both substance and administration,_ the answer to your question would be "No, they can't _actually_ be considered in covenant with God," because the term _*actually*_ in that phrase means "real in every possible sense."

But that sort of read of covenant-participation prejudices, I think, the question of the "reality" of the administration. Are we doing "real" things, in the here and now; or are we only "acting out," and what we're doing is more along the lines of "theater." I'm not happy with that notion at all.

So, this difference between substance and administration is tremendously important, not only for explicating the difference between what man is capable of doing/signaling and what God does himself alone; but also for establishing the positive significance or _*reality/actuality*_ of the administration.

Administration doesn't "do" everything, even the most important of things; but it really "does" something. Unregenerate people in the church are _really_ in a covenant-relation with God via the administration--but to ONLY have this relation to God via the administration *minus* the substance is dreadful. At best, the description of the appearance of things is "incomplete" or "inchoate," if some person is in rebellion presently, but may (hopefully) return to faith.

That administration is "real" is demonstrable by the seriousness of the warnings given in Scripture to those who kick against the goads. The book of Hebrews takes apostasy seriously.


So, in short, if one means by "actually" the sense "having both aspects of covenant relation," then no, unregenerate people aren't _actually_ in covenant. And they never were, for instance in the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants either.

But if _actually_ means "really" or "seriously," then sure, such persons are _actually_ in covenant, in a purely administrative way--and thus dreadfully dangerous condition.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but your command of Church history is really poor if you think that the Reformation and all of Church history can be summarized by Martin Luther. You'll have to do a lot better than that.
> 
> You're assuming a hermeneutical "reset" is necessary. You're imbibing the hermeneutic of the heretic. That doesn't make you a heretic but it implies that the Church has been without the witness of the Spirit for 2000 years and now you (and a handful of people) know what Jesus and the Apostles *really* meant.
> 
> Why should I be heeding you? Why not N.T. Wright? Why not E.P. Sander? Why not Karl Barth?
Click to expand...


I never said Church history could be summarized by Martin Luther. I'm just saying that along the way there's been some poison added in the well. Do we throw it all out? Of course not. But we should always evaluate. Are you saying that Luther's views haven't affected anyone?

I do not claim to have a unique perspective and to be God's gift to theology. But I have been in the Reformed community for ~15-ish years, and I came into the community after growing up with a father who gave me a great appreciation for the Jewish context of the Bible. I see a big disconnect between the two and we can all learn from one another.


----------



## pkananen

Clark-Tillian said:


> Peter,
> 
> You wrote: I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?
> 
> Luther, as is well known, had some problematic thoughts in this area. However, to accuse him, after he's been in the grave for hundreds of years, of being a precursor and inspiration for Reinhard Heydrich, is inexcusable.



I'm sorry, but it's fairly accurate to say that. Luther's writings were cited and distributed by members of the Nazi party. I'm not saying Luther was a Nazi, or would have been one. But I am saying that what he said in "Of the Jews and Their Lies" was not far from Kristallnacht.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?
> 
> Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?
> 
> Thank you...
Click to expand...


Really? Sorry, I'm not biting.


----------



## pkananen

Clark-Tillian said:


> Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.



I will thoroughly engage with Hebrews 8-10 soon. It is certainly applicable. As I noted here, understanding Hebrews is vital to reconciling the Torah observance (including sacrifices) of the apostles after Jesus had ascended.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?
> 
> Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?
> 
> Thank you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Sorry, I'm not biting.
Click to expand...


Seriously. It's not a request. 

I am not certain of your basic orthodoxy given how casually you cast off historical theology.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?
> 
> Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?
> 
> Thank you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Sorry, I'm not biting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously. It's not a request.
> 
> I am not certain of your basic orthodoxy given how casually you cast off historical theology.
Click to expand...


I have not casted off historical theology. I am challenging aspects of it and am asking for opinions to reconcile those issues with the Bible.

In any case, the Godhead consists of 3 persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, equal in power, substance, and glory. These three are one God.

Jesus exists as one person, with his fully divine and fully human nature present in one person.


----------



## Peairtach

pkananen said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Is it a fair comment to say.
> That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
> I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
> I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
> And build on the rock and not in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.
> 
> Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.
> 
> The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
> the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
> and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


There's no need to be sympathetic to Dispensational Theology to believe these things, Peter. See e.g. John Murray's commentary on Romans.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Firstly, Luther is a bit of a red herring in this discussion. Was he off on some things? Certainly. Was he co-opted by the Nazi party? Absolutely. 

Secondly, you didn't say "some of his theories influenced...", you wrote, "he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht" which, as it reads, is historically unfounded; yes, linguistic precision is important. 

Thirdly, you asked, "Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermenuetical table?"; this is a a rather casual, borderline ad hominem.




pkananen said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> You wrote: I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?
> 
> Luther, as is well known, had some problematic thoughts in this area. However, to accuse him, after he's been in the grave for hundreds of years, of being a precursor and inspiration for Reinhard Heydrich, is inexcusable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but it's fairly accurate to say that. Luther's writings were cited and distributed by members of the Nazi party. I'm not saying Luther was a Nazi, or would have been one. But I am saying that what he said in "Of the Jews and Their Lies" was not far from Kristallnacht.
Click to expand...


----------



## pkananen

Peairtach said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Is it a fair comment to say.
> That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
> I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
> I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
> And build on the rock and not in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.
> 
> Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.
> 
> The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
> the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
> and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no need to be sympathetic to Dispensational Theology to believe these things, Peter. See e.g. John Murray's commentary on Romans.
Click to expand...


I'm not sympathetic with Dispensational Theology. I reject it. I believe that Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology are two sides of the same coin, attempting to reconcile continuity with God's covenants through radically different means. I believe they both have significant flaws.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> I have not casted off historical theology. I am challenging aspects of it and am asking for opinions to reconcile those issues with the Bible.



My son asks me questions the way you're asking questions.

He says to me: "Dad, who is the director of Transformers?"

He doesn't want to know the answer. He wants me to tell him I do not know so he can tell me what he knows about the answer.

This is the way you are "asking questions". You are asking questions to set up a discussion so you can tell us all the insights you have gleaned about what the Bible "really teaches". You're not interested in having your former understanding reformed by a comprehensive systematic, historical, and exegetical theology but you want to throw out tidbits here and there.

The problem, Peter, is that your approach is ad hoc and exhausting to interact with. I demand of you that you interact with Church history and you throw out Martin Luther and the Nazis as examples of how the Church, for the last 2000 years doesn't like the Jews and, consequently can't understand the Apostles because of their antipathy toward all things Jewish. I could try to respond but it's like trying to interact with a Jack Chick tract. Where does one begin?

You are foundationally ignorant of the things you're asking questions about but you are not acting as a questioner but as the teacher. If the latter continues then it's just going to end because you're propagating error with the scholarly level of a Chick tract and we don't allow error to be propagated here. If you're actually interested in learning from us Reformed folk then ask questions and try to understand it but you will have to be willing to be re-formed and, yes, that probably means casting off family affinities if your own father taught you error. I hate to be so blunt but the fact that I grew up Roman Catholic in a loving home doesn't give me interesting "insight" into Mary that I hoped to regale the Reformed community with. I recognize it for the garbage it is no matter how loving my family was.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

The entire book, but especially the middle sections dealing with the glories of Christ's superior priesthood to the Aaronic order, are not merely "applicable"; they are essential to answering your direct question in this thread. Some decent commentaries--which are easily had can be helpful, but a careful reading of a good translation (I'd advise 2-3 via comparison), is a prerequisite. I personally think that neglect of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the source of a great deal of aberrant covenantal thinking in the last 175 or so years. 




pkananen said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will thoroughly engage with Hebrews 8-10 soon. It is certainly applicable. As I noted here, understanding Hebrews is vital to reconciling the Torah observance (including sacrifices) of the apostles after Jesus had ascended.
Click to expand...


----------



## Peairtach

pkananen said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Is it a fair comment to say.
> That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
> I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
> I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
> And build on the rock and not in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.
> 
> Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.
> 
> The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.
> 
> God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
> the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
> and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


See e.g. John Murray's commentary on Romans; Errol Hulse "The Restoration of Israel", for a list of Covenant Theologians who believe in the conversion of the Jews, and all nations - although Hulse, himself, sometimes goes a bit far In my humble opinion; "The Puritan Hope" by Iain Murray. See Lloyd-Jones on Romans 11.

Everything necessary for the New Covenant has been made ready since the first century AD. All that has to happen is that the leaven has to continue to expand through the three measures of meal i.e. the Gospel has to penetrate the hearts and minds of the nations. They have to be incorporated not into Israel after the flesh (I Corinthians 10:18) i.e. the nation of the Jews, but into the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) i.e. the NT Church. Indeed Israel after the flesh is one of the nations that needs to be incorporated into the Israel of God.

Dispensational Theology - particularly eschatology - is the closest thing to science fiction the evangelical church has, and should be eschewed.

On the errors of "Messianic Judaism" see the book on the subject by the late Christian Jew, Stan Telchin.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not casted off historical theology. I am challenging aspects of it and am asking for opinions to reconcile those issues with the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My son asks me questions the way you're asking questions.
> 
> He says to me: "Dad, who is the director of Transformers?"
> 
> He doesn't want to know the answer. He wants me to tell him I do not know so he can tell me what he knows about the answer.
> 
> This is the way you are "asking questions". You are asking questions to set up a discussion so you can tell us all the insights you have gleaned about what the Bible "really teaches". You're not interested in having your former understanding reformed by a comprehensive systematic, historical, and exegetical theology but you want to throw out tidbits here and there.
> 
> The problem, Peter, is that your approach is ad hoc and exhausting to interact with. I demand of you that you interact with Church history and you throw out Martin Luther and the Nazis as examples of how the Church, for the last 2000 years doesn't like the Jews and, consequently can't understand the Apostles because of their antipathy toward all things Jewish. I could try to respond but it's like trying to interact with a Jack Chick tract. Where does one begin?
> 
> You are foundationally ignorant of the things you're asking questions about but you are not acting as a questioner but as the teacher. If the latter continues then it's just going to end because you're propagating error with the scholarly level of a Chick tract and we don't allow error to be propagated here. If you're actually interested in learning from us Reformed folk then ask questions and try to understand it but you will have to be willing to be re-formed and, yes, that probably means casting off family affinities if your own father taught you error. I hate to be so blunt but the fact that I grew up Roman Catholic in a loving home doesn't give me interesting "insight" into Mary that I hoped to regale the Reformed community with. I recognize it for the garbage it is no matter how loving my family was.
Click to expand...


You are right in part. I do think these issues are critical, and I think they are a blindspot for the Reformed tradition. I'm sorry my approach has been abrasive. I will try to be as inquisitive as possible. Ultimately, we all agree that the Bible alone should speak.

I protest that I am foundationally ignorant of the things I'm asking questions about. I do think I have a different perspective that deserves answers. The fact is that there is a lot activity in scholarly circles on these issues, but the Reformed tradition generally doesn't interact with them. I have interacted with them, and as a part of the Reformed community, I need to understand how people reconcile these issues. Perhaps my problem is that I've done my study before I came to this board, rather than as part of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> I protest that I am foundationally ignorant of the things I'm asking questions about. I do think I have a different perspective that deserves answers. The fact is that there is a lot activity in scholarly circles on these issues, but the Reformed tradition generally doesn't interact with them. I have interacted with them, and as a part of the Reformed community, I need to understand how people reconcile these issues. Perhaps my problem is that I've done my study before I came to this board, rather than as part of it.



Peter,

I've been at this for quite some time. I know you consider yourself well studied but your studying the wrong things. You throw out information about Church history in a manner that makes plain you haven't really studied it. You try to blend bits and pieces you've learned from Messianic Judaism and Covenant theology.

The manner in which you do so demonstrates that you don't have a very solid apprehension of the theology you say you've studied. It's like you're looking at a car that we'll call Reformed theology. You've looked at all the parts of the car but you don't really know how they fit together or work and so you'll take a part from Messianic Judaism and just throw out the fuel pump from the car because it doesn't look the way that Messianic Judaism told you a fuel pump works.

Forgive the crude analogy but Covenant theology is understandable for the average person to apprehend certain concepts but the entire system of doctrine is interconnected exegetically, historically, and theologically in such a way that it makes not only specific sense in places but comprehensive sense. Thus, as you're interacting with Bruce (for example) you'll say: "Yes, I like the windshield. Yes! The hood looks good! No! That's the wrong engine!"

And then you'll say: "See we pretty much agree on Covenant Theology!"

From an exegetical standpoint, you don't seem to understand the relationship between theology and interpretationa nd the interaction that they have with one another. Even a basic study of language reveals how sound theology affects translation itself. So you repeatedly claim for yourself an avoidance of presuppositions, etc while you deal with the text in a brutish fashion.

You're simply basically untrained in many areas and I think the fact that you're convinced that your Messianic Jewish "insights" are going to "repair" Reformed theology are preventing you from really learning from it. It's rather like the person who only goes to John 3 in order to quote John 3:16. He'll never learn what Jesus is really saying because he keeps anticipating that single verse. Sadly, you're so intent to get to the parts that prove what you're trying to say that the rest of the text or the theology is really just a prelude to what's really important to you.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I protest that I am foundationally ignorant of the things I'm asking questions about. I do think I have a different perspective that deserves answers. The fact is that there is a lot activity in scholarly circles on these issues, but the Reformed tradition generally doesn't interact with them. I have interacted with them, and as a part of the Reformed community, I need to understand how people reconcile these issues. Perhaps my problem is that I've done my study before I came to this board, rather than as part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I've been at this for quite some time. I know you consider yourself well studied but your studying the wrong things. You throw out information about Church history in a manner that makes plain you haven't really studied it. You try to blend bits and pieces you've learned from Messianic Judaism and Covenant theology.
> 
> The manner in which you do so demonstrates that you don't have a very solid apprehension of the theology you say you've studied. It's like you're looking at a car that we'll call Reformed theology. You've looked at all the parts of the car but you don't really know how they fit together or work and so you'll take a part from Messianic Judaism and just throw out the fuel pump from the car because it doesn't look the way that Messianic Judaism told you a fuel pump works.
> 
> Forgive the crude analogy but Covenant theology is understandable for the average person to apprehend certain concepts but the entire system of doctrine is interconnected exegetically, historically, and theologically in such a way that it makes not only specific sense in places but comprehensive sense. Thus, as you're interacting with Bruce (for example) you'll say: "Yes, I like the windshield. Yes! The hood looks good! No! That's the wrong engine!"
> 
> And then you'll say: "See we pretty much agree on Covenant Theology!"
> 
> From an exegetical standpoint, you don't seem to understand the relationship between theology and interpretationa nd the interaction that they have with one another. Even a basic study of language reveals how sound theology affects translation itself. So you repeatedly claim for yourself an avoidance of presuppositions, etc while you deal with the text in a brutish fashion.
> 
> You're simply basically untrained in many areas and I think the fact that you're convinced that your Messianic Jewish "insights" are going to "repair" Reformed theology are preventing you from really learning from it. It's rather like the person who only goes to John 3 in order to quote John 3:16. He'll never learn what Jesus is really saying because he keeps anticipating that single verse. Sadly, you're so intent to get to the parts that prove what you're trying to say that the rest of the text or the theology is really just a prelude to what's really important to you.
Click to expand...


I'm ok if you reject any of my claims that I have made. It will not hurt my feelings. You are right - I have no formal credentials and you do not need to listen to my rhetoric. But when I present a Biblical argument, I believe it deserves an answer. You closed down a thread I responded to without engaging with the Biblical evidence I provided. Just telling me my exegesis and hermeneutics are wrong does not prove anything. You need to show where my premises are wrong based on my argumentation. I'm truly not trying to be adversarial, but you should be able to refute it if I'm wrong.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> I'm ok if you reject any of my claims that I have made. It will not hurt my feelings. You are right - I have no formal credentials and you do not need to listen to my rhetoric. But when I present a Biblical argument, I believe it deserves an answer. You closed down a thread I responded to without engaging with the Biblical evidence I provided. Just telling me my exegesis and hermeneutics are wrong does not prove anything. You need to show where my premises are wrong based on my argumentation. I'm truly not trying to be adversarial, but you should be able to refute it if I'm wrong.



I didn't shut down that thread. Another Admin did because you were propagating error.

It's not about feelings or credentials.

You don't necessarily "deserve" an answer to every Biblical argument. The man who claims, over and over and over again. that John 3:16 teaches that Christ died for everyone can be shown to be in error but then he keeps repeating the error.

You're not presenting sound Biblical arguments that are exegetically based. You're quoting texts and telling us what it must mean and that Covenant theology has missed this important feature of the text. Yet, the history of Biblical theology has interacted with those verses.

You can read any common refutation of dispensationalism to see how we'll interact with them. You may think it's "new" because Messianic Jews are saying it but do you think just repeating the same argument and then telling us that the reason we *really* don't believe it is because we are being prideful toward the Jews is going to convince us?

If you want to demonstrate that you understand Covenant Theology then anticipate what the objection would be from a mature perspective. Anticipate how someone who understands the Covenants from our perspective would interpret what you're saying and then demonstrate what the alternative is. You see there is much more that has to be done than to cast doubt about a couple of verses. It would literally mean a new *foundation* to the building. Everything about that nature of the Covenants and salvation would have to be recast to change what we believe the Scriptures believe are fulfilled shadows to state that "No, really, they have continued relevance right now - for Jews that is." What would this comprehensive Covenant Theology look like that would affect the nature of Christ's Mediatorial offices, the Church, the Sacraments, Justification, Sanctification, etc? We're not told - we just have to give an answer to the "biblical argument" in the form you expect it.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ok if you reject any of my claims that I have made. It will not hurt my feelings. You are right - I have no formal credentials and you do not need to listen to my rhetoric. But when I present a Biblical argument, I believe it deserves an answer. You closed down a thread I responded to without engaging with the Biblical evidence I provided. Just telling me my exegesis and hermeneutics are wrong does not prove anything. You need to show where my premises are wrong based on my argumentation. I'm truly not trying to be adversarial, but you should be able to refute it if I'm wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't shut down that thread. Another Admin did because you were propagating error.
> 
> It's not about feelings or credentials.
> 
> You don't necessarily "deserve" an answer to every Biblical argument. The man who claims, over and over and over again. that John 3:16 teaches that Christ died for everyone can be shown to be in error but then he keeps repeating the error.
> 
> You're not presenting sound Biblical arguments that are exegetically based. You're quoting texts and telling us what it must mean and that Covenant theology has missed this important feature of the text. Yet, the history of Biblical theology has interacted with those verses.
> 
> You can read any common refutation of dispensationalism to see how we'll interact with them. You may think it's "new" because Messianic Jews are saying it but do you think just repeating the same argument and then telling us that the reason we *really* don't believe it is because we are being prideful toward the Jews is going to convince us?
> 
> If you want to demonstrate that you understand Covenant Theology then anticipate what the objection would be from a mature perspective. Anticipate how someone who understands the Covenants from our perspective would interpret what you're saying and then demonstrate what the alternative is. You see there is much more that has to be done than to cast doubt about a couple of verses. It would literally mean a new *foundation* to the building. Everything about that nature of the Covenants and salvation would have to be recast to change what we believe the Scriptures believe are fulfilled shadows to state that "No, really, they have continued relevance right now - for Jews that is." What would this comprehensive Covenant Theology look like that would affect the nature of Christ's Mediatorial offices, the Church, the Sacraments, Justification, Sanctification, etc? We're not told - we just have to give an answer to the "biblical argument" in the form you expect it.
Click to expand...


Point taken with the last paragraph.

Regarding my quoting of texts and telling you what they mean:

I provided the textual summary of temple worship by the Apostles as described in the book of Acts. There was a clear thread of engagement with temple worship. I have read Reformed commentary on these verses and I find them to be insufficient. Paul clearly was sending a message that he was Torah observant. Do you agree with this or not?


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Peter, 

Do you think this is valid reasoning?

Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete. 
Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational. 
Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Peter,

To be Torah observant one must adhere to the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in Galatians 2 proves that Paul did not think the dietary restrictions were valid in the New Covenant. Your assertion that Paul was Torah observant is not valid.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

In order to be fully Torah observant one must insist that every Jewish male, 8 days or older, be circumcised--as well as male Gentile converts and their male children of 8 days of age--or older. Galatians 5 disproves your assertion on Paul's being Torah observant. Bear in mind that Galatians was written early in Paul's ministry.

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. I would they were even cut off which trouble you."


----------



## pkananen

Clark-Tillian said:


> Peter,
> 
> Do you think this is valid reasoning?
> 
> Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
> Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.



Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid. 

In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon. 

As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Thank you. Hebrews truly is the key, brother. Please recall that Acts is a transitional book. The Temple was still up and running, so the Jerusalem Apostles et al went there to pray and to witness/evangelize. There is zero evidence they partook of the sacrificial system. If Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency with regard to a matter such as eating with Gentiles, which is a separation law, which, by comparison, is a small matter compared to sacrificial offerings, then how would he have reacted if Peter had partaken of Yom Kippur?

Also, Paul did not circumcise Titus, an obvious Gentile covenantal believer (convert). If the Old Covenant was still valid/operational during the period in which the events recorded in Acts occurred, then Paul is in covenant breach. I doubt you want to accuse him of such an egregious offense. 




pkananen said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Do you think this is valid reasoning?
> 
> Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
> Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.
> 
> In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.
> 
> As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.
Click to expand...


----------



## pkananen

Clark-Tillian said:


> Thank you. Hebrews truly is the key, brother. Please recall that Acts is a transitional book. The Temple was still up and running, so the Jerusalem Apostles et al went there to pray and to witness/evangelize. There is zero evidence they partook of the sacrificial system. If Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency with regard to a matter such as eating with Gentiles, which is a separation law, which, by comparison, is a small matter compared to sacrificial offerings, then how would he have reacted if Peter had partaken of Yom Kippur?
> 
> Also, Paul did not circumcise Titus, an obvious Gentile covenantal believer (convert). If the Old Covenant was still valid/operational during the period in which the events recorded in Acts occurred, then Paul is in covenant breach. I doubt you want to accuse him of such an egregious offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Do you think this is valid reasoning?
> 
> Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
> Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.
> 
> In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.
> 
> As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Read Acts 21:17-26. This is a clear picture of Paul purposefully participating in temple offerings to prove he is Torah observant. Is Paul being hypocritical or are we missing something in our reading of his teachings? 

17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. - Acts 21:17-26


----------



## Clark-Tillian

Admittedly, this is a difficult text. First, we have to be willing to admit that the apostles made mistakes--even grievous errors. Peter is exhibit A on this score. I personally think it possible that Paul erred in circumcising Timothy. Paul and Barnabas' division seems sinful from the text in Acts 15--not the division itself but the mode of disagreement. From the fact that the Judaizers hailed from the Jerusalem church district allows the inference that the Jerusalem church leaders might have compromised in some ceremonial matters; if they had been utterly stalwart then the Judaizers would've had less political clout. 

Second, v. 24 is the key verse in your argument. However, this is a vow/oath/personal covenant--the text says nothing of sacrificial offerings. I think the disciples--including Paul--erred in this decision. They sought to pacify the Jews by this action...and it backfired!

Third, compromise can be fatal to the church. A quick survey of Church History reveals this. We are officers in the PCA; if you do not see some compromise in our denomination then spectacles are in order. 

Fourth, the disciple’s sinful acquiescence does not constitute strong support for your argument. In fact, it weakens it. 






pkananen said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. Hebrews truly is the key, brother. Please recall that Acts is a transitional book. The Temple was still up and running, so the Jerusalem Apostles et al went there to pray and to witness/evangelize. There is zero evidence they partook of the sacrificial system. If Paul rebuked Peter for inconsistency with regard to a matter such as eating with Gentiles, which is a separation law, which, by comparison, is a small matter compared to sacrificial offerings, then how would he have reacted if Peter had partaken of Yom Kippur?
> 
> Also, Paul did not circumcise Titus, an obvious Gentile covenantal believer (convert). If the Old Covenant was still valid/operational during the period in which the events recorded in Acts occurred, then Paul is in covenant breach. I doubt you want to accuse him of such an egregious offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Do you think this is valid reasoning?
> 
> Whatever proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational also proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> Hebrews proves that the Aaronic priesthood is non-operational.
> Therefore, Hebrews proves that the Old Covenant is obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is well structured. I agree with your premise. If your argument is correct, then your conclusion is also valid.
> 
> In order to support my conclusion I will need to provide evidence that your arguments are incorrect, which I will do soon.
> 
> As a datapoint, we would expect that Paul either was consistent with Hebrews or erred in his actions in Acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Acts 21:17-26. This is a clear picture of Paul purposefully participating in temple offerings to prove he is Torah observant. Is Paul being hypocritical or are we missing something in our reading of his teachings?
> 
> 17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
> 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
> 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
> 20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
> 21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
> 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
> 23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
> 24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
> 25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality."
> 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. - Acts 21:17-26
Click to expand...


----------



## SolaScriptura

Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

George Gillespie’s comment drawing upon Augustine while directed toward uncommanded holy days, alludes to the general reason Jewish observances were borne with for a time:


> Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One (v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [_hereabout_], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs.3 So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks.—George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (Naphtali Press, 2014), 53.
> 1. Calvin, Comm. in illum locum. _judicare hic significat culpæ reum facere. _[_CR _80 (_CO _52), col. 110.; _Commentaries_, vol. XXI, 2.191.]
> 2. Zanchius, Comm. ibid. [Col. 2:16; cf. 1601 ed., 409; cf. _Opera_, 6.303.]
> 3. [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, _NPNF1 _1.355; cf. Migne, _PL _33.282.]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Clark-Tillian said:


> Peter,
> 
> To be Torah observant one must adhere to the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in Galatians 2 proves that Paul did not think the dietary restrictions were valid in the New Covenant. Your assertion that Paul was Torah observant is not valid.



As does the command, by the Lord, to "kill and eat" to Peter and the declaration that all foods are now clean (noted in the Gospels as well).


----------



## Justified

So only Gentiles and not Jews get to fully enjoy the liberty of the gospel...?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

pkananen said:


> There was a clear thread of engagement with temple worship. I have read Reformed commentary on these verses and I find them to be insufficient. Paul clearly was sending a message that he was Torah observant. Do you agree with this or not?



I deny it. I believe Paul was not Torah observant to the degree that the Law demands. When it suited his purposes he participated in ceremonies that he still had access to but that he, himself, understood to be passing away. In Romans 14-15 (as well as some discussions in the Epistles), he makes plain that both the dietary laws and "sabbaths" (Jewish holy days) are "esteemed" by some with a weak faith that makes it a sin for them to participate in them. He says plainly that all foods are clean but it depends upon the conscience of the individual as to whether or not he would be able to eat foods or disregard certain feast days _in faith_. That is the Jewish convert may still be unable to receive non-Kosher food in thankfulness or ignore a day he was once commanded was holy. This is not the demand of the Torah. It does not leave observance of dietary laws and feast days (sabbaths) to the conscience of the individual. If, as you claim, Paul was a Torah-observant Jew, he would have drawn out *clearly* that for some it is a sin precisely because they are still bound to such regulations.

Thus, by moving from the plain (the Epistles where he talks about feast days and foods) to the less than plain (where he participates in a feast) it is clear that he considers his participation in a feast one he can "take or leave". He is able, for the Gospel's sake, to be an observant Jew when he so wishes but his faith is strong enough so that he considers all foods clean and is at liberty to eat "unclean" foods or abstain from eating unclean foods if it would cause another brother to stumble.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?

In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.

Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.

If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.

I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.


----------



## pkananen

Clark-Tillian said:


> Admittedly, this is a difficult text. First, we have to be willing to admit that the apostles made mistakes--even grievous errors. Peter is exhibit A on this score.



Sure, I agree they made mistakes. But Acts is not exactly a NT version of Judges where everyone makes a mess and the text offers no opinion on the morality of the parties involved and we sort it out. James and Paul made a conscious decision to take an action to provide evidence of Paul's Torah observance. That is exactly that the text says: "Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law."




Clark-Tillian said:


> I personally think it possible that Paul erred in circumcising Timothy. Paul and Barnabas' division seems sinful from the text in Acts 15--not the division itself but the mode of disagreement. From the fact that the Judaizers hailed from the Jerusalem church district allows the inference that the Jerusalem church leaders might have compromised in some ceremonial matters; if they had been utterly stalwart then the Judaizers would've had less political clout.



You are welcome to your opinion. However, I've been accused of bring presuppositions to this discussion. Might there be some presupposition in your opinions about the actions that Paul should have taken as well?



Clark-Tillian said:


> Second, v. 24 is the key verse in your argument. However, this is a vow/oath/personal covenant--the text says nothing of sacrificial offerings. I think the disciples--including Paul--erred in this decision. They sought to pacify the Jews by this action...and it backfired!


Actually, it's virtually assured that they were completing a Nazarite vow. This was not a personal vow. If it was personal, it would mean nothing for Paul to participate in it. Here's the description of the vow in scripture. There was plenty of sacrificial blood shed, and heads were indeed shaved. And Paul funded it all!

13*“And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, 14*and he shall bring his gift to the LORD, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering, 15*and a basket of unleavened bread, loaves of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers smeared with oil, and their grain offering and their drink offerings. 16*And the priest shall bring them before the LORD and offer his sin offering and his burnt offering, 17*and he shall offer the ram as a sacrifice of peace offering to the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread. The priest shall offer also its grain offering and its drink offering. 18*And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall take the hair from his consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the sacrifice of the peace offering. 19*And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and one unleavened loaf out of the basket and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them on the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaved the hair of his consecration, 20*and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD. They are a holy portion for the priest, together with the breast that is waved and the thigh that is contributed. And after that the Nazirite may drink wine. 
21*“This is the law of the Nazirite. But if he vows an offering to the LORD above his Nazirite vow, as he can afford, in exact accordance with the vow that he takes, then he shall do in addition to the law of the Nazirite.” 



Clark-Tillian said:


> Third, compromise can be fatal to the church. A quick survey of Church History reveals this. We are officers in the PCA; if you do not see some compromise in our denomination then spectacles are in order.
> 
> Fourth, the disciple’s sinful acquiescence does not constitute strong support for your argument. In fact, it weakens it.



Again, there are potential presuppositions in your statements. Paul and James did not see this as compromise, but you do. You call their actions sinful. They did not. They were actually concerned about Jewish believers zealous for the law knowing that the Apostle to the Gentiles was not compromising his Jewish calling and identity!

If Paul is trying to pacify the Jews here so they don't get mad or to "become as a Jew", then why did he write an entire book of the Bible to the Galatians about the hypocrisy that Peter had about differing behavior between Jews and Gentiles?


----------



## pkananen

Justified said:


> So only Gentiles and not Jews get to fully enjoy the liberty of the gospel...?



Not "under the law" means not under the curse of the law. In Christ, they are free to pursue the law as a delight!

Psalm 1:2 
but his delight is in the law of the LORD, 
and on his law he meditates day and night. 

Psalm 40:8 
I delight to do your will, O my God; 
your law is within my heart.” 

Psalm 119:70 
their heart is unfeeling like fat, 
but I delight in your law. 

Psalm 119:77 
Let your mercy come to me, that I may live; 
for your law is my delight. 

Psalm 119:92 
If your law had not been my delight, 
I would have perished in my affliction. 

Psalm 119:174 
I long for your salvation, O LORD, 
and your law is my delight.


----------



## pkananen

SolaScriptura said:


> Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?



As I've mentioned, this argument makes Galatians a strange book for Paul to have written.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peter,
> 
> To be Torah observant one must adhere to the dietary laws of the Old Covenant. Paul's rebuke of Peter recorded in Galatians 2 proves that Paul did not think the dietary restrictions were valid in the New Covenant. Your assertion that Paul was Torah observant is not valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As does the command, by the Lord, to "kill and eat" to Peter and the declaration that all foods are now clean (noted in the Gospels as well).
Click to expand...


Except that Peter was so confused by this vision it took him quite a bit of thinking to figure it out! And if this was taught in the gospels, then how did he not know it already? I'm sorry, but the meaning of this passage is quite clear just a few verses later:



> 28*And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.


----------



## pkananen

Semper Fidelis said:


> Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?
> 
> In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.
> 
> Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.
> 
> If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.
> 
> I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.



This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.

The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.

Matthew 12:1-14


> 12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> A Man with a Withered Hand
> 9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.


----------



## Phil D.

Peter, from what I can tell you appear to essentially be parroting and/or advocating much of Hebrew Roots theology. Is this the case?


----------



## arapahoepark

pkananen said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?
> 
> In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.
> 
> Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.
> 
> If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.
> 
> I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.
> 
> The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.
> 
> Matthew 12:1-14
> 
> 
> 
> 12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> A Man with a Withered Hand
> 9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.


----------



## pkananen

Phil D. said:


> Peter, from what I can tell you appear to essentially be parroting and/or advocating much of Hebrew Roots theology. Is this the case?



Yes, it's certainly an influence. I do not agree with all of strains, teachings/teachers, emphases, etc. It's a diverse, young movement that is attempting to revive faith in Israel as in the days of the Apostles. But there is a renewed interest in post-supersessionist Christian theology in general, and this is not an exclusively Jewish interest. Check out http://www.mjstudies.com/

I think the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations has a statement of faith that most of us would have few issues with:

http://www.umjc.org/statement-of-faith/


----------



## pkananen

arap said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?
> 
> In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.
> 
> Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.
> 
> If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.
> 
> I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.
> 
> The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.
> 
> Matthew 12:1-14
> 
> 
> 
> 12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> A Man with a Withered Hand
> 9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.


----------



## arapahoepark

pkananen said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?
> 
> In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.
> 
> Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.
> 
> If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.
> 
> I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.
> 
> The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.
> 
> Matthew 12:1-14
> 
> 
> 
> 12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> A Man with a Withered Hand
> 9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.
Click to expand...


So you're basically in agreement with Mark Nanos and dispensationalism. You are arguing for heresy. The heresy that Paul refuted. Give Galatians a thorough read why don't ya.


----------



## Phil D.

pkananen said:


> Yes, it's certainly an influence.



For those interested, here is a mostly contra HR resource.


----------



## pkananen

arap said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?
> 
> In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.
> 
> Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.
> 
> If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.
> 
> I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.
> 
> The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.
> 
> Matthew 12:1-14
> 
> 
> 
> 12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> A Man with a Withered Hand
> 9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically in agreement with Mark Nanos and dispensationalism. You are arguing for heresy.
Click to expand...


I have read some of his work and have found it interesting. I don't know a lot about him and I doubt he considers himself a dispensationalist. I am not a dispensationalist myself. Very few in the Messianic community would embrace dispensationalism because dispensationalism is an attempt to reconcile continuity between the Old and New covenants in a way that is generally understood differently in MJ theology.

This is the part I do not understand about the Reformed community. As soon as you suggest anything other than amillennialism (or maybe begrudgingly 'historical' pre-mil) the Dispensational card gets whipped out in 2 seconds. There is more variation than Covenant/Dispensational and it's hard to even talk about it without people freaking out.


----------



## rickclayfan

pkananen said:


> If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.



"So much study and reflection on the subject is bound up with [Scripture] that no person can possibly do it alone. That takes centuries. To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e. from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and doomed to die." ~ Herman Bavinck

"Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility." ~ Charles Spurgeon


----------



## Peairtach

pkananen said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I might add the following proviso: How, exactly, were the Apostles ever supposed to teach about the risen Christ if they were disbarred from Worship for being in a state of ceremonial uncleanliness?
> 
> In other words, while the Temple ministry was still in operation, the Apostles needed to be in and among Jews to be able to proclaim the Gospel. Yet, someone who is ritually unclean cannot do this. It makes perfect sense that the Apostles would keep themselves ritually pure, not because they believed foods and festivals had not been abrogated, but because their mission field was among people who still needed the Gospel.
> 
> Even being in a Gentile home or being around dead bodies made a person unclean.
> 
> If Paul was in a perpetual state of ritual cleanliness then he would not have had to undergo preparation to even be on the Temple grounds.
> 
> I might also add the examples of Jesus Himself. The Law does not permit that a person touch a leper or a dead body of someone who is not their relative. Jesus did both, and regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not explain Paul's actions in Acts 21, nor does it explain his speech before Felix in Acts 24.
> 
> The essential thing to understand about Jesus' Torah teachings is that he spent a lot of time clarifying how to rectify potential conflicts when two laws were in tension. For example, healing the sick on a Sabbath, or touching a dead person to heal them. Jesus was not about dismantling Torah, he was elevating it to a higher purpose. This is, in part, what he meant by "fulfilling" it.
> 
> Matthew 12:1-14
> 
> 
> 
> 12*At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2*But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3*He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4*how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5*Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6*I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7*And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8*For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
> 
> A Man with a Withered Hand
> 9*He went on from there and entered their synagogue. 10*And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse him. 11*He said to them, “Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12*Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” 13*Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, healthy like the other. 14*But the Pharisees went out and conspired against him, how to destroy him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of threefold division of the law? Look into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have heard of it. I'm arguing that the Apostles didn't recognize the distinctions and continued all three divisions of the law. In short, it's a theological construct that I find to be without merit for the Jewish believers in the NT. Obviously Gentile observance was treated differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're basically in agreement with Mark Nanos and dispensationalism. You are arguing for heresy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have read some of his work and have found it interesting. I don't know a lot about him and I doubt he considers himself a dispensationalist. I am not a dispensationalist myself. Very few in the Messianic community would embrace dispensationalism because dispensationalism is an attempt to reconcile continuity between the Old and New covenants in a way that is generally understood differently in MJ theology.
> 
> This is the part I do not understand about the Reformed community. As soon as you suggest anything other than amillennialism (or maybe begrudgingly 'historical' pre-mil) the Dispensational card gets whipped out in 2 seconds. There is more variation than Covenant/Dispensational and it's hard to even talk about it without people freaking out.
Click to expand...


What about postmil? There are plenty in the Reformed community who reject dispensationalism and are postmil and believe in a national conversion of the Jews. E.g. Charles Hodge. See his Systematic Theology.

What about Wilhelmus a Brakel, who predicted that the Jews would return to their old homeland? Was he Reformed? He wasn't Dispensational or Hebrew Roots.

Baruch Maoz is a Christian and Reformed retired Jewish pastor who has written a book refuting the errors of Messianic Judaism.

The idea that those who espouse Covenant Theology haven't thought and written about how the Jews "fit in" is erroneous. They've come to varying conclusions on that, within the parameters of CT, but that diversity is found with a number of eschatalogical issues. Presumably the Lord doesn't want us to "write history in advance".

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SolaScriptura

pkananen said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've mentioned, this argument makes Galatians a strange book for Paul to have written.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## timfost

Peter,

If I could offer something for your consideration. In general, if I start to consider a doctrine that I cannot find any support for through reformation history, my default position is to hold it in question, knowing that I have a lot to learn. This is not because the reformers "got everything right," but I know that they dedicated their life to study. I have not. I have seen "new" doctrines tear a church apart. I'm not saying that what you are espousing will do that or that it is your intention, but I would caution you to tread very carefully with the mentality that says "I am probably wrong," not "I have a lot to teach you all." 

I don't want to jump in the middle of this discussion, but I think some of your assumptions lack information and rely on prejudice. I was taken back by your reference to Luther. Yes, the reformation technically started with him, but please notice some of the differences that distinguish Luther from what we consider "reformed":

1. Luther tried to reform the Catholic church from within. Reformed theology threw out the Catholic system and started afresh.
2. Luther practiced "occasional theology." The Reformed practiced "systematic theology."

It seems to me that as you accuse of bias in CT and reformed systematics, your foundation is in part built off of bias and misinformation, as if one person embodied the reformation (Luther being one of the last people I would look to for understanding reformed theology as we know it).

Hope this helps...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SolaScriptura said:


> pkananen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: does Acts 21 teach that Paul was "Torah observant," or does it show - like when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 - that he was concerned about not causing unnecessary offense to those who would have expected certain things because he was a Jew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I've mentioned, this argument makes Galatians a strange book for Paul to have written.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


Ben,

Peter stated earlier:



> If Paul is trying to pacify the Jews here so they don't get mad or to "become as a Jew", then why did he write an entire book of the Bible to the Galatians about the hypocrisy that Peter had about differing behavior between Jews and Gentiles?



Of course, the problem is that Paul did not write the Book of Galatians about the hypocrisy that Peter had about differing behavior between Jews and Gentiles.

Peter has already "filtered" Galatians through the Hebrew Roots Movement theology and, consequently, even Galatians can only confirm and not correct his aberrant theology.

As I was driving in today, I was thinking how sad it is to have this view of theology because it really does distort one's view of a fairly pivotal book in the NT about the fact that the dividing wall has been removed from Jew and Gentile.

It reminds me of something I heard in condemnation of those who ordain women as Pastors that if you can make Paul's writing mean: "I do permit a woman to teach..." then you can get the Bible to say anything.

Likewise, having studied Galatians several times, if you can come away from reading Galatians believing that Paul is really saying that there _is_ both Jew and Gentile in Christ then you can get the Bible to say anything.


----------

