| Author | Message | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 305 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dale, Coleen or anyone who can help: There is someone in an Adventist church who has done an extensive study on the Covenants. He is saying that the Abrahamic and New Covenants are the same thing with the only difference being that the physical signs of the Abrahamic covenants were spiritualized in the New Covenant. Other than the obvious, like the fact that Jesus ushered in a NEW Covenant, is there a problem with calling them the same thing? I don't agree with it because I don't think the simple reading of the text would lead one to say that, but should this be a point of contention? And if so, what really is the root of the problem with it since both covenants were established because of faith? In Christ, Patria | ||
| Bree_w Registered user Username: Bree_w Post Number: 9 Registered: 7-2007 |
Edited: misunderstood your post lol I would love to hear other thoughts on this too! Bree (Message edited by bree_w on August 21, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6604 Registered: 12-2003  |
Patria, the book In Granite or Ingrained borrows arguments from covenant theology. Covenant theology states that God has made only one covenant, but throughout time, He has expressed it in different ways. Covenant theology assumes God began with a covenant in Himself among the Trinity. (This assumption is one of the weak pillars of covenant theology because, while such a covenant may be inferred, it is not stated in the Bible and assumes God "covenants" within Himself. God's covenant with humanity, the understanding goes, is an outgrowth of His own internal covenant.) Covenant theology further says God made a covenant with Adam, another one with Noah, then Abraham, next Moses, later David, then promised a new covenant through Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Each of these covenants, this understanding states, is not a negation of the previous one but an expansion of it. Therefore, elements of each covenant are included in each succeeding covenant. The bottom line for covenant theology is that God's covenant is eternal. With each new "covenant", He reveals more of Himself, and the point is that God keeps His "Covenant", just revealing more and more as time passes--sort of a "progressive revelation" of His covenant with man. This argument, therefore, sees the Mosaic covenant as an expanded revelation built on the Abrahamic covenant. The law given to Moses, in this understsanding, become what continues on into the next covenants. In the new covenant, Jesus is the more complete revelation of God than was the law, but the more complete revelation does not negate the revelation of the law. In covenant theology, Jesus is the ultimate means God uses to keep His covenant with mankind. There is reality within the covenant theology paradigm, but I find some serious weaknesses also. Covenant theology sees God's eternal covenant as the central theme of God's faithfulness. All successive revelations merely show in deepening ways how God is faithful to His promises. Within a covenant framework, Jesus is the way God demonstrates and honors His covenant. The problem with this paradigm is that the Bible actually presents Jesus as the central theme of God's faithfulness. To us on earth, Jesus and His salvation are the central themes of the Bible. The covenants successively reveal Jesus and His work instead of the other way around. Covenant theology presents the incarnation as a confirmation of God's eternal covenant. Dispensational theology and new covenant theology present God's covenants as promises pointing to and revealing Jesus. In other words, the center of attention in covenant theology is God's covenant, and Jesus, in a way, confirms the covenant. New covenant theology sees the covenant as revealing Jesus. Covenant theology, which states that God really has only one covenant with humanity expressed in different ways, sees the Mosaic law as having a purpose for new covenant Christians because the morality it expresses is a revelation of God. New covenant theology states that Jesus Himself IS the revealtion of God, and in His Person and sacrifice He fulfilled ALL the law—not just the ceremonies but the curse and also the blessings. Therefore, we now obey the law of Christ written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We no longer look to the written law for our moral guidance. I understand the arguments of both views, but Adventists are using covenant theology because it exists within certain portions of Christianity, especially Reformed circles, and it serves their purpose. They quote authors and arguments showing that God's law is eternal because He has only one covenant--and then they make the Sabbatarian argument which covenant theology does not make. Covenant theology often includes a modification of the Sabbath command, stating that since Jesus rose on Sunday and since early Christians often met together on Sunday in celebration of the Resurrection, we can enjoy the Sabbath principle by meeting together on Sunday and celebrating Jesus our Rest by worshiping together on the first day. Some covenant theologians have taught that Sabbath sacredness transferred to Sunday; others simply see it as a transference. The problem with saying there is only one covenant is that the Bible clearly says God gave a "new covenant". It was NOT LIKE the old. It is completely new because it inaugurated a whole new reality: born again people whose spirits are made alive by the indwelling Holy Spirit. This phenomenon did not happen until Pentecost when Jesus had become our curse, broken the power of sin and death, and opened a new, living way to the Father through His blood. The New Covenant is not just a continuation of the old--it is NEW because the people are NEW. The Holy Spirit IS the law in us--He is God, the Author of the Law, and He can be trusted to convict us of sin and bring us into obedience more capably than did the law. Patria, check out the new Proclamation online at www.LifeAssuranceMinistries.org and read Dale's artice: The Law Written on the Heart and also Chris Badenhorst's article, New Covenant Ethics. So yes, there is a problem with saying there is only one covenant, especially since Galatians has explicitly stated that the old was given temporarily until the Seed would come and compares it to Hagar and Sinai and compares the New Covenant to Sarah and God's promise. Colleen (Message edited by admin on August 21, 2007) | ||
| Cortney Registered user Username: Cortney Post Number: 27 Registered: 8-2006 |
Isn't the fact that the New Covenant was put into affect by the blood of Jesus proof that the Old Covenant wasn't as good and complete as the New Covenant?How can the Old Covenant be the 'same' if it was only put into affect by the blood of an animal[in biblical terms, an animal with no imperfections].Doesn't the blood of Christ prove the Covenants are not equal? I thought the New Covenant completed and fulfilled the Old Covenant. | ||
| Bigal Registered user Username: Bigal Post Number: 88 Registered: 9-2006  |
Yes, much of the Old Covenant pointed forward to Jesus. Why continue with the "shadows" from the Old Covenant when Jesus was/is now here? Alan | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 618 Registered: 11-2005 |
Patria, if he takes the Abrahamic Covenant, and "leapfrogs" directly to the New Covenant, thereby bypassing the Old Covenant, what does he do with the Old Covenant 4th Commandment. He just skipped that and jumped directly into the New Covenant administered by a totally different High Priest (Jesus) of a totally different order (Melchezidek) and tribe (Judah) with a totally different Covenant. I wish that all Adventists would jetson the Old Covenant that easily! Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1316 Registered: 9-2006  |
Wayta go Colleen! As I was reading your rundown on the covenants I thought that a person might look at it like this "The Holy Spirit IS the new covenant in us", No Holy Spirit, no covenant, old or new. Without the Holy Spirit we are without a covenant. Just a thought that passed through my head, I don't know how it stacks up against a theologians view. I had a thought upon in my head upon my bed and decided Fred is dead. River P.S. I reserve the right to change my mind. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6605 Registered: 12-2003 |
River, you're actually onto something there! Isaiah 42:6 says of the coming Messiah, "I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles." This verse identifies the Messiah as the covenant. It is through the Holy Spirit indwelling us that Jesus becomes known and real to us; through the Holy Spirit Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (Ephesians 3:14-19). So yes—God Himself is our covenant; the blood of Jesus is the new covenant (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20; 1 Co 11:25). Great summary, River! Colleen | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 139 Registered: 8-2005 |
My current understanding. I see God's covenant with Abraham more of a promise than a covenant. The Old Covenant(COI) is the physical fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Land=Palestine, Many Descendents=COI The New Covenant(Jesus) is the spiritual fulfillment of the promise to Abraham. Land=Heaven, Many Descendents=People from all nations, tribes and tongues. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1317 Registered: 9-2006 |
Right Brian3, Gods fulfillment of his promise to Abraham,What did God tell Abraham, to look up and count the stars wasn't it, to count the grains of sand and at that time Abraham was childless I believe. Oh, the story of Abraham is rich indeed. I love the study of the covenants and before I came to this forum I never gave it thought at all, when you look back to the promise God made Abraham it is a real faith builder. The old covenant was written in stone, but the new covenant is written in the heart and sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Signed, sealed and delivered. Hallelujah, If I keep thinking about this stuff I ain't gonna get much work done, I feel like I am gonna go into orbit!! Glory! To! The! King! River | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 307 Registered: 3-2005 |
Oh!!!!!!!! Let me rephrase and you tell me if I get it. Messiah IS the New Covenant and because He had not yet come, the Abrahamic Covenant cannot be the same as the New Covenant (which He ushered in at His incarnation.) In fact, would it be accurate to say that Christ was the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant since He was the promised seed? Is that close? As I think through the logic of Covenant Theology that says the original Covenant was between God Himself, I am left wondering why? He is perfect. Why would He need to make a promise to Himself or a conditional relationship? It almost sounds as if that was worked backward. In other words, find your theology of choice and then make the Bible fit it. How else would you START with a covenant between the Trinity? Feel free to correct me! Patria | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2049 Registered: 10-2004  |
Patria, It's great to see you posting again! Welcome back. I believe you're right about the "covenant" between God and...who? Himself? It doesn't make sense, in light of Galatians 3: "For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one." (Galatians 3:18-20 NASB.) In other words, if God makes a covenant all by Himself, then it is a unilateral promise and has only one party (it's not an "agreement" between multiple parties), since "God is only one." Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on August 21, 2007) | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 428 Registered: 8-2006 |
While taking a New Testament class at a (gasp!) Jesuit university, I discovered the covenants. It was learning that the 10 commandments were part of the Mosaic covenant that was ratified by the blood sacrifice that was the beginning of the end of my believing in Adventism. Susan | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6608 Registered: 12-2003 |
Patria, I think you've got it! Christ was the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. He was the promised Seed. Jesus made everything NEW! Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1318 Registered: 9-2006 |
Its quite fatastic really, you look way back there at Abraham, God stops the sacrifice of Abraham’s son, that would not do, God would furnish the sacrifice, not Abraham’s son, his son. The Adventist lay the sacrifice of Sabbath keeping on the alter when God has furnished the sacrifice. The word “furnished” has a final ring to it doesn’t it? Will God accept the sacrifice of Cain? He didn’t then and he is not in the business of change so I don’t think he will now. I fear for the very soul of my Adventist friends, it will be a fearful thing to come before God and see your life sift through your fingers like sand, his righteousness and perfection is a terrible thing to behold. It will consume our wood, hay and stubble. I can depend on nothing I do or say, but cling to his righteousness and saving grace. I cling to the old rugged cross and one is gonna have to rip my bloody fingers loose from it in order to separate me from it, in order to do that he’s going to have to go through Jesus. I don’t wanna hear no old dried up dead sermons, preach me Christ and his saving grace. River | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 308 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thank you Jeremy. It's good to be back. I feel so good having put that final piece in the puzzle of my brain...well, at least in regard to THAT issue.  River: beautifully said. Colleen: Thank you for pointing me in the right direction...AGAIN! Patria | ||
| Dale Registered user Username: Dale Post Number: 12 Registered: 4-2007  |
Patriar, You may wish to read "The Continental Divide of Biblical Interpretation". Find it in the July/Aug, 2001 issue of Proclamation! | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 311 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thank you. That was a very helpful article. I have read that once when it was reprinted and will read it again. Thank you for the reference. Patria | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 693 Registered: 4-2006  |
River, amen I'll cling to Jesus with you :-) He is my righteousness, my own is so filthy, indeed. Jesus, its a mystery that you've saved a sinner such as I, sitting here in awe of your work, thanks, thanks so much!!! Martin | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 105 Registered: 5-2007 |
Why couldn't God have told his Son "If you will take their punishment for them and live holy, I will save them". ? Wouldn't that be a covenant referenced by Gal 3:19 ...until the seed would come to whom the PROMISE had been made. |
