Christ is the fulfillment of the OT covenant, the promised mediator of the covenant, the messenger of the covenant, who was "expected in faith" (Mal3:1).He IS the Mediator of the new covenant(Heb8:6;9:15;12:24)He is the guarantor of the covenant(Heb7:22),introduces His own into the covenant(Rom5:2). His blood is the blood of the covenant, and it is by the blood of the everlasting covenant that Christ has become the "Great Shepherd of the sheep." Even His resurrection took place in virtue of the promise of the covenant(Acts13:32f).The theology of he covenant of grace is constantly presented to us in by the Apostles. It is the central theme of Peter's Pentecost sermon where he expounds the covenant and its fulfilment. Also in Stephens adress you find the same theme. Paul affirms the permanence of the covenant and the vitality of its promises (Gal3:17). Christians are the children born according to the promise(Gal4:21,23,28), they are children of Abraham(Gal3:7,26,29)The believer is justified by faith, like Abraham, and enters into the same covenant and receives the same promises. It is the supreme 'secret' of God, the mystery which He reveals only to those who fear Him, and he causes them to know His covenant(Ps25:14). This is the germ, root and pith of all revelation and theology.
JD wrote: The epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to the Hebrews whether anyone likes it or not and the warnings and the admonitions are in connection with their special relationship since Abraham with God in covenant relationships and promises that are unique to these people alone. That does not mean that I, being a gentile, can not be instructed doctrinally from this epistle and understand the mind and purposes of God. In fact, I could not be doctrinally sound without it! BUT IT WAS NoT ADDRESSED TO ME!
But because we Christians are in the same covenant relationship as Abraham (Rom2:28,29; 4:11,12,16,17; 11:17; Gal3:8,9,29 - just to name a few)and receive the same blessings and promises, we are now the true Hebrews and non-believing Jews are just unbelievers. In Eph 2 Paul lays our laboriously that there is now only one body, one church. So each letter written to each church is for every church in all ages. There is not one word, not one letter, that was written directly to you JD, so what are you going to do - throw your Bible away? can you not see from the above texts and the many, many others that we are partakers of the covenant blessings first promised to Abraham? Did Zacharias and Maria sing their songs in vain?
Discerning Believer wrote: Independent Fundamental Baptist.
Ah, I see. Thank you! By the way, have you ever seen the Baptist Confession? It is very short. In Phillip Schaff's three volumes on the confessions, the Baptists rate 1 page. This is because it is identical with the WCF, except for two points - being Baptism (obviously, or else the whole denomination ceases to exist) and Church Government.
JD wrote: Jago, Mr J and DJC49 is going to need some help looking in the OT for a man who is called a son of God or that was said to be born again. Do you think you are up yo it?
Up to anything you ask me mate - you are the one that is still avoiding my much-asked question re sin. What is "Born Again?" It is to be made alive, raised from being dead in sin. It is having your heart of stone removed and being given a heart of flesh. It is being given spiritual life so that you are able to see, hear and discern spiritual truth. Just because the words "Born Again" do not appear in the OT does not mean the OT did not teach regeneration. If it is true that all are born in sin, none can do any good or seek after God, all are spiritually dead then it follows that before anything can be done regeneration must take place. You refuse to see it because it does not fit with your theology. Nicodemus couldn't see it because it did not fit with HIS theology. He was amazed. Do you notice that Jesus did NOT respond to his amazement by saying, "Nicodemus, being born again is a NT concept, it is very new, unheard of and unknown in the OT. Please let me explain it to you." Rather He said, "YOU ARE THE TEACHER OF ISRAEL AND YOU DO NOT KNOW?" How is that possible?
Discerning Believer wrote: Romans and Ephesians. Those in the IFB who do teach from Romans conveniently skip over the verses that pertain to election and predestination.
Yes - or say that Romans 9 has nothing to do with election of NT believers, but with choosing of a whole nation. It does mean a lot of Scripture has to be ignored or explained away. But tell me, and please excuse my ignorance, what is the IFB?
If you cannot see one covenant of Grace, one plan of salvation, one people of God then anything and everything I or anyone else says in defence of Covenant Baptism is pointless. Then it must first be proved that what I said above is true. I would like the opportunity to do that first. So, as space and time permits I will present the case in stages. The Mosaic covenant did not annul the Abrahamic covenant(Gal3:7). The promises made to Abraham are constantly used as a reminder to Israel of their position(Ex6:3-8;Dt1:8).A careful examination of these things will show that both Abraham and Sinai are essentially the same covenant.It is THIS covenant that people continually broke in the OT.This covenant is so important that the words of God are called the words of the covenant, the Scriptures as the Book of the covenant.The sacrificial blood is the blood of the covenant. The offerings, sabbath observations etc are signs of the perpetual covenant. The tables, the ark etc all called 'of the covenant.' This theme runs through the time of the Judges, the Kings. The intercessions of the prophets are based on the covenant. These were not temporal, earthly things - their import was in spiritual, heavenly things. The OT saints had the same faith we have.I will go into NT covenant next time.
Michael Hranek wrote: Mr. J Would you kindly give me the reference were girls were circumcised in the OT? I kind of missed that one. btw Have you somehow forgotten that faith in Christ must be personal and not something someone else, even our parents does for us? You do remember I've commented about being raised RC and in Catholicism that is exactly what happens when they sprinkle infants the parents imagine they are doing for their helpless infant something that gives that baby spiritual life. John 1 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
You misunderstand Covenant Baptism mate - I told you it is not the same as Roman Christening. You also miss the OT structure of family, where women hardly get a mention because everything pertaining to them comes through the man - either the father or the husband. Get your hands on a book which adequately explains the Reformed and Biblical doctrine of Baptism, read it, then get back to me. Being in the covenant is not the same as being saved - never was. Jacob and Esau were both covenant members. They were born into it.
I think we have lost a lot of understanding of the whole OT. We no longer sing the Psalms, and prophecy is being misused more and more to bolster Dispy double vision. Even Revelation, which parallels Ezekiel is misreprented to the point of distortion because no one sees the Bible covenantally anymore. Revelation is given as a covenantal document in the style of a covenantal document. Even the seven churches, which clearly parallel the Old Testament church, are misused and misquoted. So it is not so much of a concern as to what Book is neglected, but how are they used? I personally know next to nothing of the Song of Solomon. I derive nothing from it, and it is nowhere quoted in the NT. Sometimes I wonder why it is in the canon. But that is my own personal view, so please don't shoot me down over it.
JD wrote: Here is another fact: No OT person was ever born again of the Spirit and possessed him as an eternal indwelling presence as a part of his nature.
I told you - John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from the womb. Now I ask you, does the Spirit of God live in an enemy of the Father? Does He live in someone who is spiritually dead? Does He live in someone who is wholly unclean? The answer to all those is NO. BEFORE the Spirit of God comes into anyone, OT saints included, He first regenerates, justifies and sanctifies. But according to you Enoch could walk with God and be taken away by God, but he was not regenerated or indwelt by the Spirit of God. God took an unregenerate, unjustified and unsanctified man into heaven to be with Him. JD, I like you man, you give me a lot of fun. But please, please, please, get off your unbelievably high horse and smell the roses. You are so way off, and with every bold statement you make yourself look more ridiculous. Read Joshua, just before Jericho. What do you see? Regeneration, justification and sanctification. You see it again in Ezekiel 36 (which also contains that embarrasing sprinkling text). You see it again in John 3,4 and 8. Please! Unlike you I don't want to hit my head on a pole!
Lisa wrote: Mr False piety-I wonder, you appear awefully vexed by my last comment that you must resort to sexist abuse.
Lisa - he is being no more sexist than God Himself is! As for extra-biblical revelation, you are on dangerous ground here. Our sole authority lies in the inscripturated Word of God, inerrant, infallible and Living. Whenever I have a biblical discussion with someone and they say, "The Lord spoke to me" the discussion is as good as over. They have had a 'word from the Lord' and most of them get very offended when I ask them what was the text they got it from. God has in these last days spoken to us by His Son. The canon of Scripture is closed and it is complete for us and contains all things we need to know pertaining to salvation and a life of godliness. I am not saying that there are never occasions when God does not break with the norm and speak to people. But many talk about these things as if they are common events. The voice of the Shepherd is from the pages of the Book and the witness of the Spirit. I do know of people who hear voices in their head, but there is medication to control this condition.
JD wrote: But neither does the NT forbid baptising infants of believing parents. It does not forbid smoking pot. That is called an argument feom silence.
I have accused you of this before JD and you do it again - taking a small part of what someone said and misusing it. I did NOT say that the Bible argues from silence. I said that the Word of God gave the sign of the covenant to infants in the OT and does not abrogate that command in the NT. Instead, Peter in adressing those of the OT tells them that now, in Christ, in the New Covenant, the promise is still to their children as well as to them. He did not have to explain to them what that promise was. They knew that from reading the OT. They would have expected their children to be part of it, and if they weren't, to be told that they weren't, and why things had changed in that regard. Both Mary and Zacharias saw in Christ the fulfillment of the covenant. Paul told the Colossians that circumcision and baptism were synymous, the same way that Passover is with Communion. Your argument is fallacious. I hold to baptism on the basis of the covenant of grace, which God first made with Abraham. As a Christian, I am a partaker of that same covenant, and so are my children. Where do your kids stand?
Carl Gayle wrote: (Part 2) Either way, all I say to Christians who do not believe in it or dismiss it for whatever reason; I say â€śbe careful with what you say lest you blaspheme the Holy Spiritâ€ť. If you say its â€śnon-sensical and superfluousâ€ť then it is not from God, and if it is not from God then who else is left? Iâ€™m not youâ€™ve actually donâ€™t it but Iâ€™m saying be careful, that I say out of love. But if your 100% sure then thereâ€™s not much i can say.
If it is not from God, there are two other origins. One is demonic - which is certainly a possibility considering that many religions outside Christianity have ecstatic utterances. The other is human - meaning people go into an ecstatic state either in a self-induced way or in an artificial way. Many linguistic tests have been done on those speaking in tongues which all came to the same conclusion - whatever it is, it is not a language.
DJC49 wrote: __ Kingdom of God = Kingdom of heaven. Same.
Yes they are mate. OT Covenant = NT Covenant; Israel = Church; Passover = Communion; Circumcision = Baptism; Circumcision of heart = regeneration; the list goes on. Of course, if you got your Dispy Blinkers on then you cannot see that cos they nake you see double. If you saw it, you would no longer be a Dispy, and that would be too much. So we have two of everything; two ways of salvation, two kingdoms, two resurrections, two peoples of God, two returns from the exile, two restorations of the temple, two great tribulations, two comings of the Lord. Maybe that is why Dispy's are so hard to reason with. Give them Scripture, they call you dishonest. Give them more Scripture they question your faith. Try to reason with them they start verbally abusing you. Makes me wonder why I bother. Must be my friendly, patient and loving nature.
When John baulked at baptising Jesus, the Lord said it had to be done to fulfill all righteousness, ie, to fulfill the law. The law in Leviticus clearly states that priests were sprinkled. That Jesus' baptism was His ordination into the priesthood is clear from several angles. When Hebrews talks about the Melchizedek priesthood and Christ being the high priest it refers back to His baptism. When Jesus was asked by what authority He cleansed the temple, he answered the question with a question, intimating that He received priestly authority from His Johannine Baptism. On top of that, when John denied he was the Christ he was asked, "Why then do you baptise?" If he had been immersing they would have asked him, "what are you doing?" The OT NOWHERE speaks about a Saviour who will immerse, but it speaks about a Saviour who will sprinkle. The Old Testament promise of the coming Spirit is often prefaced with the words, "Then I will pour out My Spirit." John referred to Jesus as He who would baptise with the Spirit. The fulfilment of the promise of the coming Spirit with whom we would be baptised is seen at Pentecost. Where He was "poured out." No immersion there. In the two pictures of baptism, the Ark and the Red Sea there was immersion, of the damned. Immersion is not Scriptural!
They're a lot of questions Jago and I do not have so many answers. I remember when I was at theological college we had to exegete those passages and that was the outcome. I love good hymns, but there are so many bad ones with shoddy theology. I hate choruses, not all, but most. Most of them are very poor musically and are abysmal theologically. Many of them are almost as repetitive as a mantra. I lament the standard of worship these days; casual, irreverent, people-pleasing. The music is only a symptom of that sickness. There was a time when the church was seen as seperate from and different to the world. Now we have brought the world into the church; the world's methods and the world's music. Worship is not primarily there for us, but for God. It is what HE commanded, because it must consist of what pleases HIM. The Jews always had a problem with their worship because to them it was boring. They were not allowed to get involved, just stand there and watch their sheep get burnt. Ever smell a burnt sheep? It stinks! But God says, "It is a sweet smelling savour in MY nostrils." To me that is the bottom line - who are we there to please, God or man? Once we get that sorted the music thing will sort itself out.
Hebrews was written to the church, just as Romans was, and the other books. It was written to the NT church. The whole OT was written for the NT church. If you can not see the organic unity and continuity between Old and New testament, between Israel and the Church then you have missed the whole big picture.
JD wrote: I know that you cannot receive this because you are not spiritually equipped but it may help someone. Da 12:13 But go thou thy way till the end [be]: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.
So you can be filled with the Spirit yet not born again and thus still dead in sin? Your attempt at trying to maintain a clear distinction between OT and NT saints despite the weight of Scriptural evidence to the contrary is clearly an attempt to cling to an erroneous framework of theology. Job could say, "I know that MY REDEEMER lives." Do he and I have different Redeemers? Are we redeemed differently? The Psalmist could say, "Whom have I in heaven but you?", and "You will guide me with Your counsel, and afterward receive me to glory?" Is this a different kind of glory? Was Paul wrong when he equated the Christian church with Israel, and as being the true seed of Abraham? Was he mistaken when he explained how there is one body, united by Christ (Eph 2:14-16) who is that one true vine of which all believers are the branches (Rom 11)? I suppose Paul was not as spiritually equipped as you, because he was not fortunate enough to have a Scofield Bible to give him the keys to all the mysteries. Give me a break!
Carl Gayle wrote: Does the bible teach that NOT all tongues are in an earthly Language but some in a heavenly or angelic language? Iâ€™m sure it does but I seem to be the only one who can see it.
There is only one text where this is hinted at and that text is a preview to Paul's well-known poem of love in I Cor 13. But you need to see Paul is speaking hyperbolically here, when he refers to the tonges of men and of angels. Angels are spirit beings. They do not have tongues. When they converse with people, they speak the language of those people. The whole concept of a 'heavenly prayer language' is non-sensical and superfluous. God is never superfluous. He understands English quite well. He does not need to miraculously give you a private prayer language so you can have a deeper relationship with Him. If you want to have that and be filled with the Spirit then "Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly" (comp Eph 5:18,19 with Col 3:16).
Barry Watson wrote: No one can deny that God's providence has removed some restraints within the last fifty years. Homosexuals are coming out of their closets and manifesting their pride. Gay pride was not in our vocabulary fifty years ago. The degree of sexual promiscuity manifested today was unheard of then. The sanctity of the home and family was not violated then as it is today. There were no human laws giving women the right to murder their unborn babies. People were not marching as they are now for what they call "their rights." By rights every human being deserves hell. The answer to why God is putting up with all this is not difficult from the Biblical perspective. God is longsuffering for the sake of the elect who have not been brought by the Holy Spirit into the actuality of His grace in Christ. (See II Pet. 3:9,15; II Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:1-8.)
Well said! I read that there was a Time Magazine article published in the late 1960's which talked about the sickness of homosexuality and how these people needed help. Anyone writing an article like that these days would have a very short journalistic career. Now we even have them as 'ministers' in our so-called churches, and we have all been effectively silenced.