Covenant Theology

[Lees]

There has only been forever one gospel. The first appearance of the gospel rose was in Gen 3:15 when the first bud of it was revealed. But now in the NT, this "mystery" gospel has been fully revealed (Col 1:26)

Seriously? Is not the NC the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that through his "seed" all nations would be blessed? Paul certainly thought so (Gal 3:14-16). And is not Jesus the Son of David, therefore fulfilling the promise God made to the king that he would have an heir to always sit on his throne which was made possible only the resurrection of Christ from the dead?

The are only two redemptive covenants in scripture: The Old and the New covenants. In the former the ancient Hebrews were redeemed from their bondage to Pharoah in Egypt (Ex 6:6; Deut 7:8, etc.). And in the latter all God's elect throughout the entire world are redeemed (Mat 26:28; 1Pet 1:18-19; Gal 3:13-14; Eph 1:7, 14: 4:30, etc.)

There has always been the truth of what God is doing in the redemption of man. But not one gospel. (Gen. 3:15) is the first written prophetic utterance of what God is going to do. The gospel's always pertain to the one truth, concerning the seed to come, but they are not always the same. And they are no mystery. (Col. 1:26) is not a gospel mystery. It is the mystery of the Church. The gospel of the Church is 'believe on Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16:31) Which is a different gospel than the gospel of the Kingdom, which is 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:1-2), (Matt. 4:17), (Matt. 10:5-6)

The New Covenant is the New Covenant. It is 'new' in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant. (Jer. 31:32) The Mosaic Covenant has passed away. But the Palestinian Covenant, which speaks to the land promise for Israel is still in place. The Davidic covenant, which speaks to Messiah being from the house of David is still in place. In other words, the New Covenant does not fulfill these covenants. The New covenant is a part of what God is doing in the redemption of man which is outlined in the Abrahamic covenant. (Gen. 12:1-3)

No. All the covenants are 'redemptive' in nature. But they are all separate covenants. They are not to be combined in just the Old and New Covenants. There were millions of people before Israel. Israel was not the beginning of the covenants.

All you are doing is blending all the covenants into a bag and calling them either old or new. Every covenant has it's purpose in the redemptive goal of God. Covenant theologians do that a lot.

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Doran

Are you such a coward as to not be responsible for your own words? Correct your post #20 where you attempt to present your words as mine. I know...it was all a mistake. So many here make the same mistake.

Concerning your post # (20), the New Covenant was for Israel. (Jer. 31:31) It was not about making the Church which is where both Jew and Gentile become one body, the Church. It was about putting the law in their hearts. (Jer. 31:33) And it is yet future for Israel as they have not yet experienced that.

Lees

 

[bbas 64]

Good day,

I think this is great overview ( simple)

 

[Josiah]

Good day,

I think this is great overview ( simple)

Thanks, Bill

But I wonder, is there a Christian who disagrees with any of this? Don't we all say this (although perhaps without the wonderful Scottish brogue?)

When I'VE heard or seen this title, it seems to refer to a Reformed/Calvinist... one who fully embraces the distinctive Reformed Confessions and perhaps TULIP. But what this Christian expresses seems universally Christian.

Interesting.

Thanks! Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[bbas 64]

Thanks, Bill

But I wonder, is there a Christian who disagrees with any of this? Don't we all say this (although perhaps without the wonderful Scottish brogue?)

When I'VE heard or seen this title, it seems to refer to a Reformed/Calvinist... one who fully embraces the distinctive Reformed Confessions and perhaps TULIP. But what this Christian expresses seems universally Christian.

Interesting.

Thanks! Blessings!


- Josiah



.

Good day, Josiah

I agree really good question, I wish I knew the answer.

May be it is the outworking... I know this that Dispeys do not agree with CT, and CT does not agree with Dispeys.

I could star a thread at "that other Place" and see what happens.


IN Him,

Bill