Author Topic: The New Covenant  (Read 1126 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7324
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
The New Covenant
« on: Sun Apr 21, 2013 - 00:20:36 »
What we as pastors and spiritual leaders of God's flock need desperately in this day and age in the US, is to learn and understand what the New Covenant is and how it works.

This is vital, because we do not live in a covenantal society like those in Jesus' and the Apostles did, most of us have little to no real knowledge of the Covenant nor how it works, and this knowledge changes the way we interpret the NT Scriptures.

Hopefully, any real ministers will have as complete a Biblical Hermeneutic study method in which they utilize in order to bring the intended meaning of the Word of God to their flocks, covenant understanding (particularly of the New Covenant) is a vital aspect of that Hermeneutical study system.

The following is a brief description of the basics of hermeneutics:

The Basics of Modern Biblical Hermeneutics

     This appendix describes the basics of the modern day, accepted methodologies of Biblical Hermeneutical study of the Word of God. There are plenty of resources for further study if the reader wishes to indulge themselves, which are far more intricate and detailed than our purpose here. Our purpose here is to give the reader a simple outline of information, summarizing what Biblical Hermeneutics methodologies is all about.
     One of the most important aspects of Biblical Hermeneutics is the method of reasoning employed in the search of the intended meaning of the Scriptures, and the method of reasoning utilized here is the Deductive method. Out of all the methods of reasoning, Biblical Hermeneutical study falls under the category of Deductive Reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves using true premises in order to reach a conclusion that will also, therefore, be true. If the rules and logic of deduction are followed, then an accurate conclusion is ensured. The following is an example of employing deductive reasoning:

Premise #1 – Dogs are animals.
Premise #2 – Rin Tin Tin was a dog.
True conclusion = therefore, Rin Tin Tin was an animal.

     Deductive reasoning will always give a true conclusion as long as the premises are both Valid and Sound. The above example is both valid and sound, the following example is valid, but not sound because it is not true for every instance:

Premise #1 – Theologians eat steak.
Premise #2 – Paul eats steak.
False conclusion = therefore, Paul is a theologian.

     We know that the above conclusion is in error because we can demonstrate that it is false. Premise #1 is not true of all theologians, therefore it is not valid and sound, even though premise #2 is. Another example would be:

Premise #1 – Artichokes come from artichoke seeds.
Premise #2 – Tomatoes come from tomato seeds.
Premise #3 – Cucumbers come from cucumber seeds.
False conclusion = therefore, birds come from bird seeds.

     Again, this conclusion is false even though all the premises are true, because we can falsify it by other facts that positively demonstrate it to be false. Next we will look at the Principles, Rules, and Axioms  of Biblical Hermeneutics, but we will not be defining the categories:

Principles
   Rules
      Tenets

Principles of Hermeneutic Study

     A principle (for our purposes) is a primary, fundamental, or basic rule of interpretation from which Biblical truths are derived, an adopted set of rules or method for application in the process of exegesis (interpreting a text). Vlach, in his hermeneutics study guide, has gathered a number of insights from hermeneutics teachers, of which one speaks concerning the origin of hermeneutical principles:

“These hermeneutical principles. . . are not the result of some unusual genius of a select few individuals. The principles of interpretation are not invented or learned but are part of the very nature of man. . . . the principles for interpreting the Bible are simply descriptions of the way people think and read when they seek to understand the meaning of any writing. They are not inventions, they are discoveries. Rather than being created, they are observed. If they were arbitrarily devised by man, then each person could make up his own rules.”  (1)

     The following list contains the basic usual principles endorsed by hermeneutic professors and writers; however, after analyzing these endorsements, I place some of them in a different category than most. Some are Principles (those basic and foundational acknowledgments that we must keep in the back of our minds at all times during interpreting the Scriptures), some are methodological rules of interpreting ancient documents written in a different time, place, culture, language, etc. Those rules find their functionality in the employment of certain axioms that the average individual can understand as necessary steps for complete interpretation of a foreign text. Those principles are as follows:

1.  Christocentric Principle
2.  Full mention Principle
3.  Progressive Revelation Principle
4.  Human willingness Principle:

"On the other hand, Scripture itself teaches that spiritual commitment, or lack of it, influences ability to perceive spiritual truth. Romans 1:18-22 describes the result of a continuous suppression of the truth as a darkened understanding. I Corinthians 2:6-14 speaks of wisdom and gifts that are the potential possession of the believer but which the unregenerate person does not possess. Ephesians 4:17-24 describes the blindness to spiritual realities of a person living in the old nature and the new realities open to the believer. I John 2:11 declares that the man who harbors hatred experiences a blindness resulting from the hatred. Based on such passages as these, this view posits that spiritual blindness and darkened under-standing hinder a person’s ability to discern the truth regardless of one’s knowledge and application of hermeneutical principles." (2)

5.  Typology Principle
6.  Application Principle
7.  The Contradiction Principle
8.  The Covenant Principle
9.  The Love of God Principle
10.  The Purpose for Creation Principle

Analytical Phases of Biblical Hermeneutics

     Different phases of analyses should be incorporated into one’s study of the Scriptures in order to gain the best and closest understanding of the author’s intended meaning. In order to correctly interpret a text under consideration, hermeneutics considers what texts not only says, but also what it supposes, does not say, implies, and assumes. There are five different analyses for the explication of the text, the Special Literary analysis, the Lexical-Syntactical analysis, the Contextual analysis, the Theological analysis, and the Historical-Cultural analysis. Each analytical phase comprises a specific Rule and the Axioms that fall under that Rule. The following is a snapshot of the process…

Step 1.  Special Literary Analysis
     Figures of speech Rule
   Identifying figures of speech tenet
   Applying individual rules of interpretation tenet

Step 2. Lexical-Syntactical Analysis
     Grammar Rule
   Function of words tenet
   Correct word substitutes tenet
   Greek word analysis tenet
   Sentence analysis tenet
   God given word definitions tenet

Step 3. Contextual Analysis
     Context Rule
   Sentence tenet
   Surrounding passages tenet
   Entire chapter tenet
   Entire book tenet
   The whole of Scripture tenet

Step 4.  Theological Analysis
     Whole Word of God Rule
   Harmonizing Scripture tenet
   Plainly understood passages to illuminate difficult passages tenet
   Text has one core meaning tenet
   Most obvious meaning is usually the right one tenet
   Contradiction tenet
   Scripture interprets Scripture tenet
   Topical tenet

Step 5.  Historical-Cultural Analysis
     Historical Rule
   Politics tenet
   Religion tenet
   Social customs tenet
   Laws tenet
   Social religious understandings tenet
        Covenant tenet

     After examining the individual phases and the steps incorporated within each one, the above order of analyses is preferred, but not mandatory. The reasoning is that, for example, when an issue of interpretation arises, what is usually the first thing one could do that is the first thing that comes to mind, or is the quickest way to resolve the problem? The first thing preferred is to rule out the possibility of the problem being related to figures of speech, which most of the time (in our experience) is easily spotted and then dealt with. Once that is out of the way, usually the next step is to check the grammatical essence of the text, beginning with the word and verse one is dealing with.
     After that the contextual analysis falls into the next logical step, followed by the theological context of the entire Word of God on the subject under study. Finally, the history and culture of the day and age in which the text was produced. There exists no reason why one could not process the given text according to any order, just as long as the person does apply each analysis in his/her hermeneutic methodology.
     One of the most important things to remember during any hermeneutic processing, is to memorize the Principles of hermeneutics and keep them in mind as you go through the interpretational processes. For example, the entire compliment of Scriptures within the New Testament originate from the New Covenant, and teach New Covenant doctrines. This, in turn, means that every word in the New Testament Scriptures are bound by the principles of the New Covenant, finding their interpretation according to, and within, those principles.
     
Special Literary Analysis: several special literary aspects of Scripture require different interpretational principles, different sets of rules that apply to different genres of Scripture. The different genres found in Scripture are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms, and letters. Within these there exists differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes, and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writings. These must be addressed appropriately, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning of the text under consideration.

Types of Language

Proverbs
Narratives
Apocalyptic
Histories
Prophecy
Poetry
Psalms
Letters

Identify the type of language being utilized in the text under consideration.

The Figures of Speech Rule: that in rightly dividing the Word of Truth, we must take into consideration the use of prose, similes, hyperbole, and other figures of speech as they are used in the Scriptures, and apply their rules carefully.



Most Common Figures of Speech

Allegory, Anthropomorphism, Antithesis, Catachresis, Euphemism, Fable, Figurative, Hyperbaton, Hyperbole, Interrogation, Irony, Literal, Litotes, Metaphor, Metonymy, Oxymoron, Parable, Paradox, Personification, Pleonasm, Sarcasm, Simile, Tautology.

     The reason why some scholars and theologians do not utilize every principle and rule outlined herein, finds itself in one or more of the elements of the violation of these principles; in other words, they have a bias or agenda that is not in accordance with sound Biblical Exegesis, and they cannot hold to their bias or agenda if they utilize all of the following outlined herein. All of the following contribute to misunderstandings of Biblical doctrine, and contribute to false teachings and false doctrine. The presence of any of the following demonstrates the presence of self will over and against the truth of the Word of God.

1.   Prejudice.
2.   Preconceived opinion.
3.   Wishful Thinking.
4.   Generalizations.
5.   Appeals to Human Authority.
6.   Appeals to the Popular Opinion.

     We must do our dead-level best to avoid all of these attitudes because they are prime reasons why we experience false ideologies, false teachings, and false doctrines in the Church today. This is an application of Systematic Theology.


(1) Hermeneutics: Principles of Bible Interpretation; Dr. Roy Zuck; as reported by Mike Vlach, Pages 59-61
(2)  Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical interpretation; Virkler, Henry A.; Baker Book House Publisher Company, 2007, Page 27. 


Blessings!

 ::preachit::
« Last Edit: Sun Apr 21, 2013 - 00:24:13 by SwordMaster »

Christian Forums and Message Board

The New Covenant
« on: Sun Apr 21, 2013 - 00:20:36 »

notreligus

  • Guest
Re: The New Covenant
« Reply #1 on: Mon Apr 29, 2013 - 15:12:35 »
I'm not sure I can believe this.  You have quoted Roy Zuck, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.  Wow!  A Church of Christ member quoting an Evangelical.  What is going on?  ::smile::

I have Roy's book which you have cited above.  A great work.

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7324
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Re: The New Covenant
« Reply #2 on: Mon Apr 29, 2013 - 19:39:44 »
I'm not sure I can believe this.  You have quoted Roy Zuck, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.  Wow!  A Church of Christ member quoting an Evangelical.  What is going on?  ::smile::

I have Roy's book which you have cited above.  A great work.
You are baiting me...

If you indeed have his book, what does he say about biblical hermeneutics? Look at what I quoted again... “These hermeneutical principles. . . are not the result of some unusual genius of a select few individuals. The principles of interpretation are not invented or learned but are part of the very nature of man. . . . the principles for interpreting the Bible are simply descriptions of the way people think and read when they seek to understand the meaning of any writing. They are not inventions, they are discoveries. Rather than being created, they are observed. If they were arbitrarily devised by man, then each person could make up his own rules.”

So, if you believe in hermeneutics, why do you not utilize them in your biblical exegesis, rather than making up your own rules to follow?
« Last Edit: Fri May 03, 2013 - 17:35:59 by Wycliffes_Shillelagh »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The New Covenant
« Reply #2 on: Mon Apr 29, 2013 - 19:39:44 »

Offline soundthruJesus

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • (G)oodness (R)endered (A)s (C)hrist (E)mpowers
Re: The New Covenant
« Reply #3 on: Sat Aug 09, 2014 - 03:27:20 »
I'm not sure I can believe this.  You have quoted Roy Zuck, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.  Wow!  A Church of Christ member quoting an Evangelical.  What is going on?  ::smile::

I have Roy's book which you have cited above.  A great work.
You are baiting me...

If you indeed have his book, what does he say about biblical hermeneutics? Look at what I quoted again... “These hermeneutical principles. . . are not the result of some unusual genius of a select few individuals. The principles of interpretation are not invented or learned but are part of the very nature of man. . . . the principles for interpreting the Bible are simply descriptions of the way people think and read when they seek to understand the meaning of any writing. They are not inventions, they are discoveries. Rather than being created, they are observed. If they were arbitrarily devised by man, then each person could make up his own rules.”

So, if you believe in hermeneutics, why do you not utilize them in your biblical exegesis, rather than making up your own rules to follow?

I'm pretty sure he interprets the Bible based on rules of intepretation that are not invented or learned but in his nature as a man, SM.

His handle alone tells me a lot about him and the fact that he is on-track about something, as real Christianity is not a religion but a relationship.  The principles of Biblical interpretation are within him through the unction of the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, even as they are with me.  And of course, even as it is with you, sometimes the witness of the Holy Ghost is ignored or snubbed because of sinful things of the heart, even as the first post testified can happen.

This is why every last one of us needs to cry out desperately for the illumination of the Holy Spirt in our reading; and also why every last one of us needs to be the kind of person that is spoken of in Psalm 1: not only memorizing specific verses or reading to find phrases or statements that substantiate or own views (which thing should be completely avoided unless those views haave been gathered from previous reading of the Bible), but reading through each book and meditating on the concepts found there until you understand them; and not skipping to another portion of scripture that seems to substantiate your own view if you don't like the message of scripture that goes against your particular view.

SM, I have seen you violate hermeneutical principles such as when in Hebrews 5:9 you have claimed that obedience is the source of salvation rather than Jesus: when it says that He is the source or the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.  You often say that we must take the whole of scripture into account, but in looking at this verse (and others) you do not.  Because the whole of scripture tells us that obedience is the effect of salvation, not the cause.  Jesus is the cause, even faith in Him.  I challenge you to show forth any scripture that conclusively states that obedience on our part saves us that cannot be interpreted as saying that obedience is the result rather than the cause of salvation.  If such a verse existed the Bible would be self-contradictory in my view (I dare you to prove me wrong).

Because Ephesians 2:8-9 is foundational to our understanding of salvation and it is hermeneutically dishonest to cut the word salvation in two or three so that in one place it means one thing and in another place it means something else, in order that you may deny the reality spoken of in this passage, that salvation is not of works.  Salvation is salvation.  Salvation from sin translates into salvation from hell and unto an eternity in heaven.  If in any place salvation is spoken of as only one of these things it will be specified in the verse or passage; otherwise the word salvation should be interpreted as all-inclusive of everything that the Bible says salvation is.  That is a hermeneutic basic to my understanding as a human being and the unction within me also testifies to the fact that it is a faithful hermeneutic.

Offline SwordMaster

  • The Word of God is a sharp two-edged Sword!
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7324
  • Manna: 58
  • Gender: Male
  • Th.D., New Testament Studies, New Covenant focus.
Re: The New Covenant
« Reply #4 on: Sun Aug 10, 2014 - 22:41:48 »
STJ said...

Quote
I'm not sure I can believe this.  You have quoted Roy Zuck, Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.  Wow!  A Church of Christ member quoting an Evangelical.  What is going on?  ::smile::

I have Roy's book which you have cited above.  A great work.
You are baiting me...

If you indeed have his book, what does he say about biblical hermeneutics? Look at what I quoted again... “These hermeneutical principles. . . are not the result of some unusual genius of a select few individuals. The principles of interpretation are not invented or learned but are part of the very nature of man. . . . the principles for interpreting the Bible are simply descriptions of the way people think and read when they seek to understand the meaning of any writing. They are not inventions, they are discoveries. Rather than being created, they are observed. If they were arbitrarily devised by man, then each person could make up his own rules.”

So, if you believe in hermeneutics, why do you not utilize them in your biblical exegesis, rather than making up your own rules to follow?

I'm pretty sure he interprets the Bible based on rules of intepretation that are not invented or learned but in his nature as a man, SM.

His handle alone tells me a lot about him and the fact that he is on-track about something, as real Christianity is not a religion but a relationship.  The principles of Biblical interpretation are within him through the unction of the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, even as they are with me.  And of course, even as it is with you, sometimes the witness of the Holy Ghost is ignored or snubbed because of sinful things of the heart, even as the first post testified can happen.

This is why every last one of us needs to cry out desperately for the illumination of the Holy Spirt in our reading; and also why every last one of us needs to be the kind of person that is spoken of in Psalm 1: not only memorizing specific verses or reading to find phrases or statements that substantiate or own views (which thing should be completely avoided unless those views haave been gathered from previous reading of the Bible), but reading through each book and meditating on the concepts found there until you understand them; and not skipping to another portion of scripture that seems to substantiate your own view if you don't like the message of scripture that goes against your particular view.

SM, I have seen you violate hermeneutical principles such as when in Hebrews 5:9 you have claimed that obedience is the source of salvation rather than Jesus: when it says that He is the source or the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.
 

You were doing fine until you got here. Your statement above demonstrates that you are either purposely putting words into my mouth and trying to make it seem as if I subvert the Word, or you have very poor reading comprehension. I have never stated from Hebrews 5:9 that obedience is the source of salvation, but that Christ is the source of salvation to those who walk in obedience to Him. I do believe that your bias fogs your ability to see the intended meaning of key passages of Scripture, and it is that bias that you need to deal with.

Quote
You often say that we must take the whole of scripture into account, but in looking at this verse (and others) you do not.  Because the whole of scripture tells us that obedience is the effect of salvation, not the cause.


If that truly is your take on the whole Word of God, then you apparently have an issue with the whole Word of God, because it teaches what your bias denies. When you pass the Word of God through your bias, taking what seems to support it and throwing away or explaining away what you don't like, then your theology becomes false doctrine. Your bias should come from what the Scriptures teach, not what it does not teach. The whole of Scripture not only teaches but demonstrates, from Adam to Abraham, from David to Malachi, and from Matthew to John, that one who does not walk in obedience to God will never see heaven. You pervert the Scriptures because you want your bias to be right, but it is not.

Quote
Jesus is the cause, even faith in Him.  I challenge you to show forth any scripture that conclusively states that obedience on our part saves us that cannot be interpreted as saying that obedience is the result rather than the cause of salvation.  If such a verse existed the Bible would be self-contradictory in my view (I dare you to prove me wrong).

See, even above you are twisting what I have clearly stated, or you do have a huge reading comprehension problem. I have never stated that obedience saves anyone, but I have stated quite clearly that obedience keeps one in covenant relationship with God. That is what covenant law is all about. If a covenant has law, it is covenant law, and covenant law has only one purpose - to keep one abiding within the covenant relationship by conforming to the nature and character of God, which is the foundation between all God-human relationship.

Abiding in the covenant does NOT give anyone eternal life, it gives one what he needs through grace and the atonement in Christ to be able to enter into God's throne room and engage Him in personal relationship, and that is all. If one does engage God in personal relationship then we will go from here into heaven...but if one does not engage God in personal relationship, then when he stands before Christ he will hear the words, "I never knew you..." So, stop putting words into my mouth...if you do not understand something that I say, then please ask and I will endeavor to explain it in more detail, but stop assuming that I mean something that I do not come right out and say.

Quote
Because Ephesians 2:8-9 is foundational to our understanding of salvation and it is hermeneutically dishonest to cut the word salvation in two or three so that in one place it means one thing and in another place it means something else, in order that you may deny the reality spoken of in this passage, that salvation is not of works.


Your sense of hermeneutics is out in left field, STJ. Please quote for me the hermeneutic principles that you refer to, because one of the first and most basic hermeneutical principles deals with the definition of words. In case you missed it, I will post the definition of salvation again for you...

Matthew 1:21
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins[/u]."

One of the principles of hermeneutics says that if God gives you the definition of a word, THAT IS THE SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION OF THAT WORD, DO NOT give it a different definition; and, the first appearance of a word in either the old or new testaments is that words definition, every use of that word (or its cognates) is to retain that definition UNLESS there is Scriptural precedent to do so.

Now, the word salvation and its cognates, based upon sound biblical hermeneutics, dictates (as well as does Scripture) that the term means deliverance from sin. The supposed definition of "saved from sin and its consequences" is not part of the definition of any of the four words in Greek translated as saved and its cognates - it is found ONLY in false Reformed Theology. Because Reformed theology is not Scripture, it is rejected.

After having gone over that, there are some places in the NT Scriptures where the term salvation and its cognates are used as a synonym for eternal life - Hebrews 5:9 is one of those instances. This is easily verifiable...as you say, salvation from sin is received by faith, not by obedience, but eternal life does depend upon walking in obedience to God in order to remain abiding in the covenant. Therefore, the writer of Hebrews does not mean "eternal salvation from sin" (which is also ridiculous if it meant that, because we don't have salvation from sin for all eternity, we only have it until the day we leave this world through death...there is no need for salvation in heaven, only here on earth while we live in our mortal sin-laddened bodies), he means eternal life.

The problem here is that if you refuse to acknowledge the Biblical precedent that salvation is deliverance from sin, used as a synonym for eternal life sometimes, but read "eternal life" every time you see the word salvation or one of its cognates, then you are not applying biblical hermeneutics to your bible study, you are not making a key differentiation between terms when a clear differentiation exists, and therefore believe and teach false doctrine.

Quote
Salvation is salvation.  Salvation from sin translates into salvation from hell and unto an eternity in heaven.


This is what I was talking about earlier...this is false Reformed teaching on the nature of salvation. Salvation...deliverance from sin...is directly attributed to the atonement in Christ - it is directly attributed to the atonement under the old covenant. Study the atonement under the old covenant, STJ, and you will see that it has only one purpose - which is the same as the atonement in Christ...

Leviticus 4:20
Thus shall he do with the bull. As he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this. And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 4:26
And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings. So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 4:31
And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 5:6
he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation for the sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Leviticus 5:10
Then he shall offer the second for a burnt offering according to the rule. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 5:16
He shall also make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing and shall add a fifth to it and give it to the priest. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 5:18
He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish out of the flock, or its equivalent for a guilt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for him for the mistake that he made unintentionally, and he shall be forgiven.

Leviticus 16:30
For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the LORD from all your sins.
 
The atonement in Christ is based upon the same principle above began in the old covenant - it is the basis for God's forgiveness and cleansing from sin, just as is ratified in I John 1:7...

1 John 1:7
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

John does not say by the Spirit that the blood of Christ delivers us from hell or the other consequences from sin. the Spirit says very specifically that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin...and what is the purpose of this cleansing? It has the exact SAME purpose as the atonement under the old covenant - to cleans a person from sin so that they can enter into the presence of God for relationship, AND THAT IS ALL. Salvation from sin is what the atonement is all about, it is NOT so that you can get a "get out of hell free" card, which is why eternal life is spoken of as both a present reality and a future consummation. One can have eternal life but not fulfill the purpose for having it - which is to come to know God on an intimate and personal basis.


Quote
If in any place salvation is spoken of as only one of these things it will be specified in the verse or passage; otherwise the word salvation should be interpreted as all-inclusive of everything that the Bible says salvation is.  That is a hermeneutic basic to my understanding as a human being and the unction within me also testifies to the fact that it is a faithful hermeneutic.

Contrary to what you think I John 2:20 tells you, you do not know all things, you have the propensity to know things that the Spirit can give rhema knowledge on, but if your bias is so bad that you cannot hear the Spirit speaking to you, then you will never come to that knowledge. Your first sentence is quite in error, for there are a number of passages wherein the term "salvation" or its cognates are NOT known as relating to the meaning, in some cases it could mean either or, but it never means both at the same time...here you are breaking another principle of hermeneutics...

Rule Eight – Every passage of Scripture has but one core meaning. However, there are exceptions found in some prophetic writings and figures of speech as dualisms. It is important to remember that in such cases, there is still only one core meaning, and neither meaning will be contradictory to any other passage of Scripture. This rule also applies to the definition of words within the text.


Blessings.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: The New Covenant
« Reply #4 on: Sun Aug 10, 2014 - 22:41:48 »



 

     
anything