New Covenant application to the NT Scriptures

[SwordMaster]

My position:
With the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants and their operating principles through continued Biblical archaeology, theology has to be modified...just as any other science (the study of...) must be amended to new discovery of things previously undiscovered by man. The Reformers did not have this information at hand, because it was not discovered until hundreds of years after their deaths, and even then, this pertinent information - although being known to the scholars since their discovery - for some reason was not passed down to the grass-roots level of the Church. I have my suspicions as to why, but will refrain from divulging that until later.

The first tenet for this debate must be that this information is not Biblical - that is, it is not found within the pages of the Bible, as is the same with other pertinent discoveries which attend sound Scriptural interpretation. Because in order to fully understand the intended meaning of the Scriptures, we must understand numerous things outside of Holy Writ, the customs of the days when the Scriptures were written, the history, and other things. The discovery and application of ANE covenant principles fall into that custom and history of God's dealings with mankind - therefore it is necessary to have knowledge and understanding of ANE covenant form and principles, because the New Covenant IS a covenant fashioned after ANE covenant form...the New Covenant IS an ANE covenant, and therefore the principles of operation of ANE covenants is to be added to our Biblical Hermeneutic...or else one skews proper interpretation of the NT Scriptures.

ANE Covenant Principles:

1.  A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.

2.  Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.

3.  Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.

4.  The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.

5.  All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.

6.  None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.

Practically all of these same principles can be observed as standard operating procedures in modern contracts, and a covenant is indeed partly contractual in nature, but the difference between a contract and a covenant is found in that the later not only establishes a binding legal agreement, but it also establishes a binding legal RELATIONSHIP so intimate in its nature, in some cultures in which they are (and were) practiced, they constitute a relationship which precedes familial blood relationships.

The second thing to uphold here is that Christ is the living New Covenant...

Isaiah 42:6
"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,

Isaiah 49:8
Thus says the LORD: "In a time of favor I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages,

These passages are part of a larger section of Messianic Prophecies, telling the Messiah that He will be a living covenant. This has great implications upon the interpretation of key passages of Scripture which the Reformers were totally ignorant of.

According to application of ANE covenant principles (particularly principle #4), the gospel as we understand it must be amended to this newest discovery of Biblical interpretational importance, which is according to the following: (this is where the "argument" begins...)

As principle #4 states, ALL promises, gifts, blessings, and benefits of the New Covenant are applicable ONLY to those who are participating in that covenant. This is where the covenant legal term "in Christ" comes into play.

Romans 3:24
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Justification and redemption are only found "in Christ," which is to say, "in the covenant."

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus,

1 John 5:11
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Eternal life is found ONLY "in Christ"...

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, ...

Sanctification is found ONLY "in Christ"...

Galatians 3:26
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Only those "in Christ" are sons of God...

Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

We have every spiritual blessing and promise ONLY "in Christ"...

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Salvation is found ONLY "in Christ"...

All of the elements of the atonement in Christ are found ONLY "in Christ"... (righteousness, holiness, redemption, justification, reconciliation, salvation - deliverance from sin, not eternal life)

So far, I do not believe there is a problem here between myself and STRanger, the problem begins to take shape in the following.

STRanger believes that once a person enters into Christ, he cannot exit Christ...but according to Scripture, this belief is folly...

1 John 3:23-24
And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us. Whoever keeps His commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

Abiding in God is the same as abiding in Christ, and according to this passage, one only remains abiding in God (Christ) as long as he remains walking in obedience to the two commandments God has given for the New Covenant - faith and loving on people when the opportunities present themselves (Galatians 6:10). Jesus ratifies this statement above here...

John 14:23
Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

and in chapter 15, where Christ tells us to remain abiding in Him, otherwise...

John 15:6
If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

And again, we are told that by loving on others we remain abiding in fellowship with God (another illusion to covenant relationship)...

1 John 2:10; 1:7
Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling...if we walk in the light, as God is in the light, we have fellowship with one another...

Abiding in Christ (the living covenant) is conditional upon walking in obedience to the law of the New Covenant; every ANE covenant had law, it is called covenant law, and that law has only one purpose: it is the conditions one must follow in order to remain abiding in the covenant from which it originates. The covenant law of the New Covenant does not give eternal life, that is not its function. It has only ONE function - to remain abiding in the New Covenant, which is Christ.

I end this portion with this...if one ceases to remain abiding in the covenant, by ceasing to practice loving on people when such opportunities present themselves, and one has the means by which to minister to them but they choose not to, then after practicing this attitude he will fall from grace, he will no longer remain abiding in Christ. Therefore, as covenant principle #4 ratifies the passages above, one will no longer remain in Christ, he will no longer remain having eternal life, salvation, redemption, reconciliation, the promises or gifts of the covenant...

As Jesus Himself reiterates...

John 16:1
I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.

[winsome]

SM,

Please pardon my interruption but who is/are the other participant(s) in this debate as it is the One-on-One Debate section & you haven't stated that in the OP.

[SwordMaster]

SM,

Please pardon my interruption but who is/are the other participant(s) in this debate as it is the One-on-One Debate section & you haven't stated that in the OP.

Sorry about that, winsome, it is with STRanger.

[S.T. Ranger]

My position:
With the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants and their operating principles through continued Biblical archaeology, theology has to be modified...

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology."

Concerning "New Covenant Application to the New Testament Scriptures," It is interesting that one would consider the covenant practices of men to dictate the New Covenant, or, for that matter...any Covenant established by God.

So my position as a whole will be laid out in the responses given to the OP, which have already been responded to in another thread in which my antagonist refused to respond to.

I will just present the true position of the OP concerning the New Covenant and salvation in general:

What Christ did on the cross was eternal...YOU, however, do not rate that work of atonement unless you REMAIN abiding in the covenant. That is my meaning, and it is clear.


You only have sanctification as long as you remain abiding in the New Covenant...


and if you cease to abide therein, then you no longer have sanctification. It is only a gift of the covenant to covenant participants.


Just because Christ is the Living Covenant does not mean that the terms and stipulations of the covenant are void...if they were, then there would be not new covenant law, yet we find that law is not only part of the new covenant, but the terms of the new covenant IS law.


Yes, again...they only pertain to the participant as long as he remains abiding in the covenant. By interpreting the NT Scriptures outside of covenant principles which guides their proper interpretation, you come up void of understanding them. EVERY WORD in the NT Scriptures hold to six covenant principles, and the main one that deals with showing you that your interpretation is in error, is principle #4...The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant. Apparently, the main issue you and I have to deal with before we can continue, is your idea of how one participates in the New Covenant...


Again, you assume what you don't understand.Everything that God accomplished through Christ is done...one time and for ever, and no one can add to that. Period. However, that is not what I am saying like you suppose that I am. What I am trying to show you, is that this eternal application does not apply to you unless you are abiding in the covenant (in Christ).

You can abide in Christ today, next year, and for five years after that, and then the following year stop abiding in Christ and return to the world. Once you make that decision in your heart, you no longer abide in Christ, you no longer abide in the covenant, and therefore none of the elements of the atonement in Christ apply to you any longer. That is what the Scriptures teach when one understands covenant principles, and that the NT is a covenant, not as "testament."



The atonement cleanses and is the basis for the forgiveness of sin ONLY as long as one remain abiding in the new covenant by which that atonement comes...


Christ's atonement does NOT forgive your future sins,


Christ paid for sin, and as long as one remains abiding in the covenant with God - in fellowship with God - then one has the continual cleansing of His blood...


Negative...you only remain "complete" as long as you abide in the New Covenant.



you continue to receive cleansing from sin according to i John 1:7 ONLY as long as you remain in fellowship with God through meeting your covenant obligations.


The atonement cleanses and is the basis for the forgiveness of sin ONLY as long as one remain abiding in the new covenant by which that atonement comes...



If you want the texts of our covenant obligations, then I will give them to you.


The New Covenant is the Living Christ, He maintains the actuated covenant - but the covenant is NOT unconditional nor unilateral, it is law based and therefore bilateral and conditional...


Christ became the new covenant High priest, after the order of Melchisedek, and then changed the law we are to keep. We no longer keep the 10 Commandments, but the law of Christ


the fact is that the new covenant has law, which makes you bound to obey it if you want to remain abiding in that covenant.


Christ did away with the Old Covenant and the law that came with it...and established the New Covenant and the new law that came with it.


Like it or not, there is a law for you to walk in obedience to if you desire to remain in covenant relationship with God.


The new covenant is law-based, which means that you have your obligations to meet, or you are out of fellowship with God. it is as simple as that.



There is no "those who are being" in there anywhere, it does not address the believer anywhere, it only addresses Christ's sacrificial act which makes for a continual sanctification for those who remain in the Covenant.



The purpose of covenant law was to function as the obligations in order to remain in the covenant, and therefore remain in covenant relationship with God, and that was it.



Walking in obedience to God does not "save" anyone, it only keeps them in covenant relationship with God.



One who does not abide in God, who ceases to love on others (general statement), ceases to abide in God - in the covenant - and so ceases to have the promises and gifts of the covenant, one of which is eternal life.

Just as the Judaizers of the first century, my antagonist seems determined to not only disregard the truth that the New Covenant is established by God with each individual through faith in Christ...alone.

You can see in the statements above that the view that one must meet "covenant obligations" in order to be saved rather than that which is taught by scripture which is that one must come under obedience to the Gospel in order to be saved.

It is both humorous as well as sad to se a statement such as...

Walking in obedience to God does not "save" anyone, it only keeps them in covenant relationship with God.

"Walking in obedience to God will not save anyone?"

Absurd: men must conform to the revealed will of God, and in this day God has spoken to us through His Son, and it is in the Son of God and what He has done, not what we can do, by which we are saved.

just as any other science (the study of...) must be amended to new discovery of things previously undiscovered by man.

So we reduce the Word of God to a science project?

Something that not until now was just not understood by the Church?

The Reformers did not have this information at hand,

Nor did they need them, for the Doctrine concerning the Covenants of the Bible are found in scripture. And that is a more sure word than the discoveries of men scrabbling in the dust.

Imagine, should the Lord tarry and in a thousand years someone unearthed San Francisco, and men tried to interpret scripture from their discoveries. Would it be heard, "We need a new theology because we have found that this area had gay Pastors..."

...?

But my antagonist has, throughout his declarations (for I cannot say any discussion has yet taken place), held the Reformers in contempt. He has charged me with being a Reformed believer, despite the fact that I have assured him I am not. While there are matters in which I agree with that which is taught by certain Reformers, apparently my antagonist is not aware of the diversity of doctrine found within Reformed Theology.

because it was not discovered until hundreds of years after their deaths, and even then, this pertinent information -

Amazing: so it was not until what, the 17th, 18th century that men had the ability to properly interpret scripture?

Let's see John's teaching:



John 20:30-31

King James Version (KJV)


30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


He also wrote:



1 John 5:11-13

King James Version (KJV)


11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


I think John would be at odds with the proposal that archaeological discoveries are "pertinent" to understanding the Word of God.

Scripture is not given as a secretive code-book discernible to those that have the magic decoder ring, but is given for the very purpose that men might know the will of God and obey.

although being known to the scholars since their discovery - for some reason was not passed down to the grass-roots level of the Church. I have my suspicions as to why, but will refrain from divulging that until later.

I will venture a guess: because the grass roots level of the Church had competent shepherds that kept them from the heresy of liberal theology which would call for new theology and deny that the Word of God is, as it is given, capable of doing this...



2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)


15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


This statement speaks of both Old and New Testaments, as the collective volume of the New Testament had not yet been assembled (though they were circulated among the Churches), though there is a focus on the Gospel in this epistle, which references the faith of Timothy's grandmother and mother.

The first tenet for this debate must be that this information is not Biblical - that is, it is not found within the pages of the Bible,

I would agree, that is a foundational pillar of denying that which is actually found in scripture.

And we will get to that.

On this point I will just say that cultural information does indeed enhance our understanding of Scripture, but, I will say plainly that we can, apart from understanding the cultural aspects of ancient cultures, understand what is given to us in scripture, particularly in regards to what Scripture actually gives us.

For example, we will see shortly, when we actually consult the Word of God rather than archaeological studies, that despite the fact that ancient custom saw covenants established through the practice of cutting animals in two and then the two making covenant walking through the middle of those halves...only God walked through the halves when He established the Abrahamic Covenant:




Genesis 15

King James Version (KJV)


7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:


The fact is that among the Covenants established throughout scripture, there is only one covenant that is an If/Then Covenant, meaning, "If you do this(Israel)...I will do this (God)."

Abraham did not participate in this Covenant, it was God that sealed this covenant, for He walked between the halves alone.

So too with the New Covenant, men do not participate, nor do they collaborate with God to be brought under the New Covenant, for it is God alone that promised and established the Covenant through the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. One is brought into relationship with God only when they are reconciled to God, which is accomplished by the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Who convicts unbelievers of sin and brings them to an understanding of their condition and the necessary righteousness one must have in order to come into the presence of God.

In other words, He convicts men of their lost state and their destiny of Hell, and that if they want to go to Heaven...they must believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and specifically....that Christ died for them, accomplishing what they would never, no matter what level of obedience they attained to, be able to do.

as is the same with other pertinent discoveries which attend sound Scriptural interpretation.

Correction: discoveries that pertain to that which is recorded in scripture do not dictate Theology, they only serve to validate what is written.

The OP has this reversed, apparently, feeling that truth can be excavated, rather than exegeted.

Because in order to fully understand the intended meaning of the Scriptures, we must understand numerous things outside of Holy Writ,

Not true.

The scriptures themselves are capable of providing that which man needs in order to come into relationship with God:


2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)


15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

the customs of the days when the Scriptures were written, the history, and other things.

A man can understand the Covenants apart from a subscription to the Discovery Channel, believe it or not.

Melchizedek is a great example of this, for the information we have about him is enough.

The Bible is complete in the necessary information that man needs: it was God, after all, that provided it. To propose that it is necessary to have extra-biblical information calls into question the very revelation God has given to man.

The discovery and application of ANE covenant principles fall into that custom and history of God's dealings with mankind - therefore it is necessary to have knowledge and understanding of ANE covenant form and principles, because the New Covenant IS a covenant fashioned after ANE covenant form...

So only those familiar with ANE covenant principles...simply cannot understand the Covenants established by God?

Amazing.

And I would like to know the Ancient Near East Covenant that prescribed the death of the Son of God for the Atonement of the sins of the world.

Got a link for that? Can it be seen where the New Covenant replicates the customs of the ANE?

the New Covenant IS an ANE covenant,

Incorrect: the New Covenant is the plan of redemption which has been progressively revealed to man throughout the Ages. The first mention of the Gospel begins in Genesis and as we trek through scripture we see an expansion on the very same promise.

The revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel unfolds when the New Covenant is established and the Comforter begins His ministry. But we see that the Gospel is the Hidden Wisdom of God, known to Him before the world was formed:



1 Corinthians 2:6-10

King James Version (KJV)


6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


Most will read this and think it is speaking about Heaven, and what is will be like. But what is in view is the Gospel, which is the means of the reconciling of man to God, thus being brought into relationship with God through the New Covenant.

and therefore the principles of operation of ANE covenants is to be added to our Biblical Hermeneutic...or else one skews proper interpretation of the NT Scriptures.

Right. Because before the 17th or 18th century discoveries...the Church was simply incapable of being made perfect by the mere Word of God.

Amazing.

ANE Covenant Principles:

1.  A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.

The New Covenant is not dependent upon man's involvement.

Many consider themselves to co-operate with God by believing, but we see that it is God that first took on the flesh of man, died to make atonement for sin, gave men the Word of God, sent the Comforter to convict men through that Word, regenerates man when they yield to that convicting ministry, indwells them that they might walk in His statues and keep His judgments, and keeps them through His power...

...not one thing a man can contribute to this work.

For the "free will" believers that think they contribute to their salvation, all I can say is that the only free will a man will effect in regards to salvation and the New Covenant is to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

And not even this is effective all the time, just ask Jonah and Paul.

2.  Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.

I would truly like to meet the man that decides..."Well, I am just tired of being born again. I am tired of being a new creature. I am tired of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit."

These things are not man's decision, but God's.

Again, we see in the Abrahamic Covenant that it is God that makes promise, and God that keeps the promise. For this reason Paul wrote:



Galatians 3:16-18

King James Version (KJV)


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.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


His point is that the promise of redemption had nothing to do with Abraham, his works, or even his faith. He believed God, to be sure, but keep in mind that the promises preceded the belief, just as they do with every single one of us that comes to faith in Christ.

We believe because God has given us that which we can place our faith in, even as Abraham did.

To promote a cooperative effort between man and God for salvation is not only putting the cart before the horse, it is murdering the horse, putting him in the cart, and pushing it to an idol to offer up this miserable sacrifice in place of the Sacrifice of Christ.

3.  Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.

Wonderful.

Now lets see what the Word of God has to say about it:



Galatians 3:17-22

King James Version (KJV)


17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Not only can God be a Mediator of one...He is. No man counseled God concerning how He would redeem sinful man...no-one.

The promises given to Abraham, which was partial revelation of the Hidden Wisdom of God, were not made void by the establishment of the Law, the Covenant.

So get out of the dust of the earth and into the Bible itself, and understand that the promises precede the Covenants. And in particular, the Covenant of Law was given, as it has been mentioned numerous times, as a temporary Covenant which most will acknowledge was never meant to provide salvation for man. The atonement was temporary and temporal, contrasted with the eternal quality of the New Covenant conditions were supplied by and through God quite apart from man's involvement.

Unless you want to bring up the fact that man's involvement is why the Lord died on the Cross.

4.  The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.

Let me quote this again:


Galatians 3:17-22

King James Version (KJV)


17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.




There is simply no way to insert man's involvement in the Covenants, particularly the New Covenant.

5.  All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.

The Covenant of Law held within it one primary promise: physical life. "Do this and live" is the general theme.

The New Covenant holds a primary promise as well: eternal life through faith in Christ.

I have already asked before...show how Abraham met "covenant obligations" that the promises be kept.

What exactly did Abraham do to procure a son. for example?

6.  None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.

Ratified by the blood of Christ quite apart from man's efforts, and inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost. individually the New Covenant is entered through the New Birth which is accompanied by the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

Both of these, promised by God in the Old Testament, are precisely what the Lord referred to when He told Nicodemus:



John 3

King James Version (KJV)


3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Now see the promise of the New Birth:



Ezekiel 36:24-27

King James Version (KJV)


24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Practically all of these same principles can be observed as standard operating procedures in modern contracts, and a covenant is indeed partly contractual in nature, but the difference between a contract and a covenant is found in that the later not only establishes a binding legal agreement, but it also establishes a binding legal RELATIONSHIP so intimate in its nature, in some cultures in which they are (and were) practiced, they constitute a relationship which precedes familial blood relationships.

So we equate God's Covenants to the contracts of men?

What is binding is the Promise of God, and God will not renege on His promises.

Men do, but not God, and to teach that God will not Keep His promises is to call into question God Himself.

The second thing to uphold here is that Christ is the living New Covenant...

Not sure how this is thought to be upheld, when the effectiveness of the Cross is denied and men are taught that they must "keep covenant obligations" to remain saved.

The fact is, if one is not saved when they are saved, then there is no salvation.

Isaiah 42:6
"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,

Isaiah 49:8
Thus says the LORD: "In a time of favor I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages,

These passages are part of a larger section of Messianic Prophecies, telling the Messiah that He will be a living covenant. This has great implications upon the interpretation of key passages of Scripture which the Reformers were totally ignorant of.

Again with the Reformers...

Sorry, but it is your doctrine in focus, and it stands in contrast to the teachings of scripture. That is likely the reason you refuse to address the posts in the other thread. You cannot deny the scriptures that make it absolutely clear that those that are saved are saved eternally.

And by the way...many passages in the Old Testament are "part of the larger section of Messianic Prophecies." For most of the Old Testament testifies of Christ Himself.

What is remarkable is that there is an attempt to create a doctrinal position that in large part ignores the revelation provided in the New Testament, the very scriptures which reveal the Mysttery of the Gospel, which was previously withheld from men.

According to application of ANE covenant principles (particularly principle #4), the gospel as we understand it must be amended

Which is the attempt of all liberal and heretical doctrinal constructs.

The truth is that the Gospel has remained the same since the First Century, and will never change according to the whims of men.

to this newest discovery of Biblical interpretational importance, which is according to the following: (this is where the "argument" begins...)

As principle #4 states, ALL promises, gifts, blessings, and benefits of the New Covenant are applicable ONLY to those who are participating in that covenant. This is where the covenant legal term "in Christ" comes into play.

Actually, the "argument begins" with a very simple passage to understand:



Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

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.


And by the way, the term "In Christ" speaks of those that have been sanctified, have been forgiven, have been immersed in Christ through the operation of the power of God...not men. One either is in Christ, or they are not.

Romans 3:24
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Justification and redemption are only found "in Christ," which is to say, "in the covenant."

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus,

1 John 5:11
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

The amazing thing is that the OP actually denies that one is justified or redeemed if they are in Christ.

That does not happen unless one "keeps covenant obligations."

Eternal life is found ONLY "in Christ"...

The amazing thing is that the OP does not believe that one in Christ has eternal life. Again, that only occurs if one keeps covenant obligations.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, ...

Sanctification is found ONLY "in Christ"...

The amazing thing is, the OP does not believe that one in Christ is sanctified. Not unless they keep covenant obligations.

Galatians 3:26
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Only those "in Christ" are sons of God...

The amazing thing is, the OP does not believe those in Christ are sons of God...how could they be if they are not sanctified, justified, redeemed, or...saved!

And the OP is not even aware that he denies these things.

Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

We have every spiritual blessing and promise ONLY "in Christ"...

Only?

That is the big problem here, lol.

The fact is that we have received the promises of God.

God promised to redeem man through Christ...He has done that for us that are saved.

God has promised to place His Spirit in those that He saves...He has done that for us that are saved.

God has promised to regenerate those that place their faith in Christ...He does that only for those of us that are saved.

God has promised to finish the work He begins in us...He will.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Salvation is found ONLY "in Christ"...

Not the salvation as taught by the OP: that salvation is earned by keeping covenant obligations.

And the OP denies this is his doctrine.

Simply amazing.

All of the elements of the atonement in Christ are found ONLY "in Christ"... (righteousness, holiness, redemption, justification, reconciliation, salvation - deliverance from sin, not eternal life)

Note that last part, folks:

(righteousness, holiness, redemption, justification, reconciliation, salvation - deliverance from sin, not eternal life)


Is that what Christ taught?



John 10:27-30

King James Version (KJV)


27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

So far, I do not believe there is a problem here between myself and STRanger, the problem begins to take shape in the following.

STRanger believes that once a person enters into Christ, he cannot exit Christ...but according to Scripture, this belief is folly...

1 John 3:23-24
And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us. Whoever keeps His commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

S.T. Ranger not only believes this, he has posted quite a few scriptures which went without response in the thread "Hebrews 10."

The OP has stated that the Law of God as taught in the Old Testament does not apply to us, and due to no response given by the OP, I am not sure how he feels that Christians can murder, lie, steal, et cetera.

John makes it clear that obedience to God is an evidence of salvation, as opposed to the OP's desire to teach that it is the means of salvation:




1 John 2:19

King James Version (KJV)


19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Abiding in God is the same as abiding in Christ, and according to this passage, one only remains abiding in God (Christ) as long as he remains walking in obedience to the two commandments God has given for the New Covenant - faith and loving on people when the opportunities present themselves (Galatians 6:10).

Well, what about keeping the statutes of the God and HIs judgments? What about establishing the Law of God?

To say that God has given two commandments (or "laws) for the New Covenant is a ridiculous proposal. It clarifies the understanding of the OP in a way that I doubt seriously he meant to.

The Law of God in regards to the will of God has not changed: it is still not acceptable to worship other gods, murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, et cetera. We still have a mandate to keep the Sabbath Holy, though for the born again believer, that has been expanded to keeping every day holy to Holy God.

And the primary reason is that because God indwells us...we can.

Jesus ratifies this statement above here...

John 14:23
Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

I will again mention that this must be understood in it's context, which is prophetic.

What will take place in the future (from the time of this teaching) is the Lord will return to Heaven, He will send the Comforter, and this will take place when the New Covenant is established.

The "word" that will be kept by the disciples in the future, after they have been baptized with the Holy Spirit...is the Gospel.

Not one of them understand the Gospel at this point, which is obvious in the events that follow.

Peter did not "keep the word of the Lord" just hours after sitting under the Lord's teaching here...he vehemently denied he even knew the Lord.

and in chapter 15, where Christ tells us to remain abiding in Him, otherwise...

John 15:6
If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

Again, this refers to the future: name one disciple that can be considered to have abided in Christ.

You can try, but the fact is that the Lord Himself denies that they will abide in Him before the New Covenant is established:



John 16:29-32

King James Version (KJV)


29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


Furthermore, we see in scripture a principle that is Biblical: those that are in Christ will bear fruit, and this is seen in the very proof-text offered to undermine the Cross of Christ:



John 15

King James Version (KJV)


4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


Again, we see a prophetic nature to this teaching, and in view is the Lord's call to the disciples that when the things that take place happen...they abide. Again, the disciples do not abide in Christ after this teaching, they are scattered:




Matthew 26:31

King James Version (KJV)


31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.


John 16:32

King James Version (KJV)


32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

And again, we are told that by loving on others we remain abiding in fellowship with God (another illusion to covenant relationship)...

1 John 2:10; 1:7
Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling...if we walk in the light, as God is in the light, we have fellowship with one another...

And it is truth we must abide in. That is John's point.

Abiding in Christ (the living covenant) is conditional upon walking in obedience to the law of the New Covenant;

Right. Two laws as prescribed by the OP.

The contradictions are so many that it would take a month to expand on each.

every ANE covenant had law, it is called covenant law, and that law has only one purpose: it is the conditions one must follow in order to remain abiding in the covenant from which it originates.

Great: you consider the Covenant of God to be an ANE covenant and I will simply view it as it is: the Covenant of God.

The covenant law of the New Covenant does not give eternal life, that is not its function. It has only ONE function - to remain abiding in the New Covenant, which is Christ.

What's the difference? To remain in covenant one must meet covenant obligation which in turn means that one cannot be receive eternal life unless through their efforts they keep these "two laws" which is without question a new theology and quite separate from actual Biblical Doctrine.

I end this portion with this...if one ceases to remain abiding in the covenant, by ceasing to practice loving on people when such opportunities present themselves, and one has the means by which to minister to them but they choose not to, then after practicing this attitude he will fall from grace, he will no longer remain abiding in Christ. Therefore, as covenant principle #4 ratifies the passages above, one will no longer remain in Christ, he will no longer remain having eternal life, salvation, redemption, reconciliation, the promises or gifts of the covenant...

There it is folks: works-based salvation which undermines the Person of Christ and His work.

And the OP is not even aware that he does so. Denial will likely be forthcoming.

As Jesus Himself reiterates...

John 16:1
I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.

The Lord was not "reiterating," He was teaching them a number of things which was intended to clarify what was taking place. He said "Let not your hearts be troubled," for He had told them He was going away, and if we are careful about our study we will see that the prophetic is evident, and it points to the Cross, the Ascension, the sending of the Comforter, and the establishment of the New Covenant on the Day of Pentecost, at which time the Disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

And I will be honest: I have invested a lot of time in the other thread so I am at a point where no more time will be devoted to someone that does not respond to posts that are addressed.

I will not respond to any post that has writing within my own statements, different colors or not. I have posted proper quoting procedure and I will not do the work separating repsonses.

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

I am sorry, STRanger, I thought you understood how a debate works.

After stating your position, which you have not done so far (all you did was take pieces of my position and give your ideas on them, all at once), then you take one piece of what I stated and make a clear, well thought out statement as to why you believe it is in error, presenting Scriptural references that you believe back your statement. Then I have the chance to rebut your statement in the same manner, and we let the viewing audience decide which of our points are more valid.

You cannot conduct a debate in the manner in which you have begun to do so, because nothing will get answered and we have not all day long to sit here and attack the whole position at one time. I believe we all know your position, so if I may, I will start...

Point 1 STRanger states...

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology."

Question: how are we to come to sound doctrine if we do not interpret the Word of God? Your first premise here is faulty, and it does not appear that you understand what interpretation means or consists of. You cannot read the Bible like a normal book and expect to come to the intended meaning of the Word, because it is not a normal book.

My opponent does not seem to understand the implications of history upon Scriptural interpretation, and denies that archaeological discoveries have anything to do with doctrine. I assume he understands that the OT is a historical record of Israel's past, secular and Divine. It is true that archaeology has verified the words of Scripture, but this is not contested.

Contrary to my opponents understanding, archaeological discoveries do have an impact upon how we interpret the Scriptures, and he seems to hold to sola scriptura which is an error in and of itself. A person that does not acknowledge that we need historical, cultural, lexical-syntactical, contextual, and special literary analysis of Scripture in order to come to a full and complete understanding of the Bible, does not understand the importance of Biblical Hermeneutics, nor how to apply them to Biblical study.

"It its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics is considered a science because it has rules, and these rules can be classified in an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a communication. To be a good interpreter one must learn the rules of hermeneutics as well as the art of applying those rules. Hermeneutical theory is sometimes divided into two subcategories: general and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics is the study of those rules governing interpretation of the entire biblical text. It includes the topics of historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analyses. Special hermeneutics is the study of those rules that apply to specific genres, such as parables, allegories, types, and prophecy." Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical interpretation; Henry A. Virkler; Baker Book House Publisher Company, 2007, pg. 16

"When we hear someone recite or read a text, our understanding of what we hear or read is usually spontaneous – the rules by which we interpret meaning occur automatically and unconsciously. When something blocks that spontaneous understanding, we become more aware of the processes we use to understand (for example, when translating from one language to another). Hermeneutics is essentially a codification of the processes we normally use at an unconscious level to understand the meaning of a communication. The more obstacles to spontaneous understanding, the more aware we must become of the process of interpretation and the need for hermeneutics. When we interpret Scripture, we encounter several obstacles to a spontaneous understanding of the original meaning of the message...Hermeneutics is needed, then, because of the historical, cultural, philosophical, and linguistic gaps that block a spontaneous, accurate understanding of God's Word." Virkler, pp. 19-20

Contrary to my opponents position on this portion of the subject matter, one can simply state that "I have the Spirit, and according to I Corinthians 2:14, John 14:26, and I John 2:27, I don't need Biblical Hermeneutics because the Spirit leads me into all truth," yet it is only through Biblical Hermeneutical analysis that we can test what they say to ascertain whether or not they really have the Spirit of God teaching them. Hermeneutics is a tool that can verify what the Spirit's intended meaning is in almost any passage of Scripture, to see if a person's personal theological holdings are accurate, or false teaching.

The simple fact that the Bible was written in a foreign language requires the application of Biblical Hermeneutics in RESPONSIBLE interpretation of the Scriptures, not too mention the fact that they were written 2,000 years ago in a different culture (which affects interpretation), with different cultural idiosyncrasies - of which ANE covenant pertains because Israel was an ANE covenant culture and society. Failing to understand how that applies to the interpretation of Scripture cannot be overestimated.

Any pastor or Christian worker worth his salt, will tell you that hermeneutics is an important factor in the interpretation of the Scriptures.

Any person who says that hermeneutics is not an important factor in the explication of the Scriptures, demonstrates a lack of common sense and Scriptural integrity, much less spiritual maturity in the Word. This is not my judgment, but that of Spirit-filled, born again scholars and theologians.

Therefore, I urge my opponent to think again on this topic, because the only way to verify a person's "claim" to having the Spirit giving him the interpretation of Scripture, is to analyze his theology with Biblical Hermeneutical principles, and I can say already in all gravity, that having read his first posting, when we apply Biblical Hermeneutics to his statements, they practically all fall headlong into doctrinal error.

Especially since he denies archaeological discoveries which demonstrate the erroneous doctrines of Reformed Theology, particularly in the area of grace vs law, and faith vs works...having no idea of the Intertestimental period between the Old and New Testaments, which Biblical Archaeology has filled in that missing information...but that is another debate page.

Blessings!

[S.T. Ranger]

I am sorry, STRanger, I thought you understood how a debate works.

I do, however, that my position will be expressed in a two-fold manner in which I will first respond to your proposals and then secondly present the scripture which I believe validates my position as well as denies yours is my choice.

I just find it easier to expose error in this manner.

If you want a secular discussion, which seems to be the case, seeing that this response appeals once again to extra-biblical sources as validation of your strategy and position, then you will be disappointed.

And I am greatly disappointed at the false charges as well as the failure to respond to what has been presented, which very much makes my position clear.

After stating your position, which you have not done so far

I have, and you know this, as you interject my position, lol.

The problem is, you have assumed to understand my position and have catered your response to an erroneous and fictitious supposition of what my position actually is.

And you see, SwordMaster, this is how our positions are established: by the foundation.

And this response is void of a scriptural foundation, but rest in scholarship and the musings of men, which is the very fundamental error that I addressed in My OP.

(all you did was take pieces of my position and give your ideas on them, all at once),

Pieces?

Ideas?

According to your lesson on how one is to employ proper hermeneutics...my response fits the description whereas yours does not.

In your response you:

1) show contempt for my response;

2) show contempt for my position, which you misrepresent;

3) presume to lecture about how one interprets scripture.


The problem with your response is that it does not even adhere to what it is you are saying is a proper method of either debate or hermeneutics.

No, it was not pieces, but every statement made in the OP.

And whether you thought they were "well-thought out statements" or not is not your place to judge. And that I presented scriptural references is clear.

then you take one piece of what I stated and make a clear, well thought out statement as to why you believe it is in error, presenting Scriptural references that you believe back your statement.

Did that, though I reserve myself to judging my statements, and admit that it was rushed, lol, so I apologize for the brevity of the response.

Then I have the chance to rebut your statement in the same manner, and we let the viewing audience decide which of our points are more valid.

The obvious fact is that...you have done that.

And you ignore the OP and target an assault on my method.

And the reason for this is clear: your position is dependent upon convincing the audience that sound theology is dependent upon extra-biblical sources and methods, and my position, which is established in the response is...Scripture alone is capable of bringing men to a sound understanding of that which God Himself intended men to know when He gave man His Word.

Furthermore your contempt for my hermeneutic practices fails to show why I am in error. But that is the way every discussion we have had so far has gone, if they can be called discussion (much less debate), seeing you refuse to address the scriptural presentations that have been offered.

How do you expect to expose erroneous exegetical efforts if you refuse to actually address the Scripture presented?

You cannot conduct a debate in the manner in which you have begun to do so, because nothing will get answered

On your side, perhaps, but I am confident the public record shows you have been answered.

and we have not all day long to sit here and attack the whole position at one time.

And here you admit that the "whole position" was addressed, though you must call it an attack.

It's just a debate, SwordMaster.

I believe we all know your position,

And how is that possible if...

After stating your position, which you have not done so far

so if I may, I will start...

Point 1 STRanger states...

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology."

Question: how are we to come to sound doctrine if we do not interpret the Word of God?

You misunderstand. One could hardly read my response and conclude I believe we should not interpret the Word of God.

The point here is in response to your position that apart from archaeological evidences which are external to the Bible and Biblical doctrine...one cannot interpret Scripture.

Which is absurd.

How many generations of Bible believers, from Moses' day to now...had archaeological efforts to draw on to interpret the Word of God?

You questioned my math in the other thread, so I will let you do the math and present the percentage.

Secondly, man's interpretation is not the final authority, which should be an obvious point to you, unless you wish to now embrace Reformed Theology, seeing that their theology is the result of man's interpretation.

But the Word of God is the final authority, and this is a basic principle which will lead to an unquestionable defeat, every time, of extra-biblical notions and concepts which arise. And that includes the absurd notion that one cannot simply study scripture and come to a sound doctrinal position which cannot be resisted.

Your first premise here is faulty, and it does not appear that you understand what interpretation means or consists of.

What is faulty is your ability to understand the principle.

Here is a Biblical statement which I feel supports my position...



2 Peter 1:16-21

King James Version (KJV)


16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


...and denies yours.

You cannot read the Bible like a normal book and expect to come to the intended meaning of the Word, because it is not a normal book.

On the contrary, not only can one read the Bible like an ordinary book (though we know it is not)...one should.

The position that you seek to establish is that understanding of the Word of God is limited to scholars, and the very Scriptures themselves deny such a position. It is evident in scripture that many of the men that are used to convey the will of God to man were not scholars, but ordinary and average men of no great status.

This is one of the errors that the Reformers sought to correct, which was a stranglehold on the Word of God which sought to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the "ordinary" man, the plowboy.

God can work better through the Spirit-filled babe in Christ than he can the proud scholar who holds contempt for the layman and by extension, God Himself, Who has given us His Word that we might know Him.

And it is evident that millions around the world, apart from formal education, come to sound conclusions concerning God by simply...reading His Word.

My opponent does not seem to understand the implications of history upon Scriptural interpretation, and denies that archaeological discoveries have anything to do with doctrine.

This is false.

Not only is it false, you cannot go a paragragh without contradicting yourself:

It is true that archaeology has verified the words of Scripture, but this is not contested.

This statement is derived from what I said:

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology."

How do you conclude that I "deny that archaeological discoveries have anything to do with doctrine?"

And you question my ability to interpret? To debate?

Furthermore, could you actually quote one sentence in my post that validates that I "do not understand the implications of history upon Scriptural interpretation?"

Here is an impact of Archaeology: evolution.

How does that impact one's doctrine?

The point is this: archaeology is dependent upon man's interpretation of the evidence or data that has been unearthed. Now contrast that with the Bible, which has remained constant for approximately 3500 years. We can thank the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls for a validation which is general, but, my faith that the Bible is the Word of God given to man was not dependent upon this discovery, nor the conclusions men draw based upon that discovery, and...it does not impact in the slightest the Biblical Doctrine one can draw out of the existing texts.

Now the point I am making is that while the conclusions of men are unreliable, the Bible is fully reliable and the only source by which one should build their doctrine upon.

There is a quote...

"Hammer away ye unregenerate hands: your hammer falls, God's anvil stands."

I assume he understands that the OT is a historical record of Israel's past, secular and Divine. It is true that archaeology has verified the words of Scripture, but this is not contested.

You would have to expand upon what you mean by secular and Divine.

And not all of the Old Testament is a historical record only, for it contains the revealed will of God, and to imply a secular connotation to that is clearly an attempt to divide the Word of God so that one might cherry-pick to his content that which he will accept as divinely revealed and that which is...secular, and thus can be disregarded.

And to appeal to archaeology as a proof of scripture denies faith in the Word of God as being what it states it is...internally.

No, I do not need Indiana Jones to help me understand the revealed will of God, nor did the majority of Bible believers through the ages.

Contrary to my opponents understanding, archaeological discoveries do have an impact upon how we interpret the Scriptures, and he seems to hold to sola scriptura which is an error in and of itself.

The problem is that you feel you actually...understand.

This is denied in this very post. You falsely charge me with errors which you are making yourself. You want to lecture me about how proper hermeneutic principles are employed and then completely disregard those principles yourself.

It would be far more difficult for you to do this if you would simply...engage the debate and respond to what has been presented.

And I agree that "archaeological discoveries do have an impact upon how we interpret the Scriptures," for that is evident in your position, which states that unless one understands the ANE discoveries...they cannot understand the New Covenant.

Good job, SwordMaster, you have singlehandedly denied the very Word of God as well as denied an understanding of God's world to not just most of the world's population, but to the world's historical population.

and he seems to hold to sola scriptura which is an error in and of itself.

This is a typical statement found in your posting: empty charges. Now the burden is on you to show from scripture how it is that the Word of God is not the final authority.

You are going to run into problems with your position if you actually incorporate Scripture into the discussion.

A person that does not acknowledge that we need historical, cultural, lexical-syntactical, contextual, and special literary analysis of Scripture in order to come to a full and complete understanding of the Bible, does not understand the importance of Biblical Hermeneutics, nor how to apply them to Biblical study.

Now show how you conclude this from my post.

More...empty charges.

"It its technical meaning, hermeneutics is often defined as the science and art of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics is considered a science because it has rules, and these rules can be classified in an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a communication.

And you deny the first principle of a sound approach to the Word of God...just read it.

And here, you seek to modify a proper approach to interpretation by making it...an art.

But what does scripture say?



1 Corinthians 2:11-14

King James Version (KJV)


11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, [b]not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth[/b]; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


You will in this very post show contempt for what the Word of God, and thus the Spirit of God Himself...teaches.

Deny that, SwordMaster.

To be a good interpreter one must learn the rules of hermeneutics as well as the art of applying those rules.

And how does one learn?

Discovery Channel?

Hermeneutical theory is sometimes divided into two subcategories: general and special hermeneutics. General hermeneutics is the study of those rules governing interpretation of the entire biblical text. It includes the topics of historical-cultural, contextual, lexical-syntactical, and theological analyses. Special hermeneutics is the study of those rules that apply to specific genres, such as parables, allegories, types, and prophecy." Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical interpretation; Henry A. Virkler; Baker Book House Publisher Company, 2007, pg. 16


"When we hear someone recite or read a text, our understanding of what we hear or read is usually spontaneous – the rules by which we interpret meaning occur automatically and unconsciously. When something blocks that spontaneous understanding, we become more aware of the processes we use to understand (for example, when translating from one language to another). Hermeneutics is essentially a codification of the processes we normally use at an unconscious level to understand the meaning of a communication. The more obstacles to spontaneous understanding, the more aware we must become of the process of interpretation and the need for hermeneutics. When we interpret Scripture, we encounter several obstacles to a spontaneous understanding of the original meaning of the message...Hermeneutics is needed, then, because of the historical, cultural, philosophical, and linguistic gaps that block a spontaneous, accurate understanding of God's Word." Virkler, pp. 19-20

But that does not mean that one cannot understand the Word of God from a layman's approach.

That is a position that seeks to gain a stranglehold over people, convincing them they need scholars to understand what God has given to all men, not just a select few.

As one studies they are going to learn these principles. All believers start out without a thorough knowledge of Scripture and grow in knowledge through the efforts of those that have grown already. It is the responsibility of those believers who have been called of God to teach to do exactly that. In this way sound doctrine is preserved in the Body. Those that teach that God somehow lost control of teaching His Church and preserving sound doctrine teach heresy, for it is Christ that builds the Church, and He does that through the very Word of God.

Do you think that God fails to preserve that which He intended man to understand about Him?

Contrary to my opponents position on this portion of the subject matter, one can simply state that "I have the Spirit, and according to I Corinthians 2:14, John 14:26, and I John 2:27, I don't need Biblical Hermeneutics because the Spirit leads me into all truth,"

Do you know just how ridiculous that sounds? Often atheists, for example, will make statements along the lines of "I was once a born again Christian but now I am not, and don't you dare say that because I no longer believe in God that I was never a Christian!"

That is precisely what you are doing here.

1 Corinthians 2:14

King James Version (KJV)


14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Show why this should not be interpreted to teach that those that do not have the Spirit of God cannot understand the things of God, of which the Gospel is certainly among the spiritual things of God?



John 14:26

King James Version (KJV)


26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


What manner of exegesis leads you to deny the very Word of Christ?

How do you possibly justify contempt for the Word of Christ and His teaching and presume to call my interpretive efforts...error?



1 John 2:24-27

King James Version (KJV)


24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


Explain how it is you feel you can lecture people about proper hermeneutics and yet not only violate the very principles you quote (and I stress the word quote), in that you yank a verse out of context, ignore the surrounding text, and then falsely charge others with such indiscretion?

John makes it clear here that there are three sources which are to be trusted: that which was originally taught, that which he is writing, and the instruction which is the result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Then you, like the atheist that rejects the obvious answer to their own question, have rejected what any babe in Christ could read and understand in it's most basic intent.

The reason why you must try to set this apart from this debate is because your interpretations and appeals to secular sources do not agree with what is taught by these Apostles, which is...the Word of God is sufficient. We can rely on God and His Word, and cancel our subscription to Discovery Channel.

Deny that, SwordMaster.

And whenever you actually get to the point where interpretive skills actually come into this debate, let me know.

yet it is only through Biblical Hermeneutical analysis that we can test what they say to ascertain whether or not they really have the Spirit of God teaching them.

Yet you assume that you are the only one that can do this properly.

How concerned with archaeological discoveries were these fellows...



Acts 17:10-12

King James Version (KJV)


10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.


...?

Hermeneutics is a tool that can verify what the Spirit's intended meaning is in almost any passage of Scripture, to see if a person's personal theological holdings are accurate, or false teaching.

And as has been evident in your response, you say this, but do not actually incorporate the very focus of interpretation into your posts.

How sad.

Look, if you want to test my approach to interpretation...simply respond to my interpretations.

The simple fact that the Bible was written in a foreign language requires the application of Biblical Hermeneutics in RESPONSIBLE interpretation of the Scriptures, not too mention the fact that they were written 2,000 years ago in a different culture (which affects interpretation), with different cultural idiosyncrasies - of which ANE covenant pertains because Israel was an ANE covenant culture and society. Failing to understand how that applies to the interpretation of Scripture cannot be overestimated.

As I have said before, this is simply a smoke-screen. Many translators over many centuries have endeavored to being sound translations of the original texts into the hands of foreign speaking peoples.

I often recommend a reading of the Original Preface to the KJV 1611 to get a look at the hearts of certain translators and their views towards the original languages and the ordinary man.

Men have for years sought to place a stranglehold on the Word of God and to establish an authority which only they can possess.

That is precisely what you are doing, but I will tell you that while I am on this forum you are going to find opposition to that endeavor and that I will do everything within my ability to encourage every believer here that you...are just not that important to their efforts to know God better.

Show me what Principle Doctrines the layman cannot glean for himself by reading God's Word?

Show me how God has not placed in the Body those that are meant to help the beginning Bible Student?

Show me how one cannot be saved and in relationship with God through the New Covenant without being expert in the ancient customs of the Biblical Lands and languages?

The fact that the New Testament is not recorded in Hebrew is the first clue that the Word of God is not limited to a particular language, and it is the intent of scripture which is important, not the language it is given in. If that were the case then all men lacking in Biblical language skills would have no hope of salvation.

Any pastor or Christian worker worth his salt, will tell you that hermeneutics is an important factor in the interpretation of the Scriptures.

And would also understand that most are not going to have the education he has.

But what is in view here is not necessarily whether or not one must be thoroughly educated, but whether the layman can come to a proper understanding of the Word of God...even on a layman's abilities.

And the answer is...yes, they can.

Your premise is that I deny a proper hermeneutic approach which is false. Quote my response or in fact anything I have posted in general that gives you the right to make such charges.

Any person who says that hermeneutics is not an important factor in the explication of the Scriptures, demonstrates a lack of common sense and Scriptural integrity, much less spiritual maturity in the Word. This is not my judgment, but that of Spirit-filled, born again scholars and theologians.

Show where I have said this, that the audience might know that your interpretation of my post is correct. That will give better insight to your interpretation of scripture itself.

Your premise is false, which makes your charge false and exposes it for what it really is...deflection from the direct response to not pieces of, but every statement you made in the OP, which as I said at the beginning of the response...shows my position.

Therefore, I urge my opponent to think again on this topic, because the only way to verify a person's "claim" to having the Spirit giving him the interpretation of Scripture, is to analyze his theology with Biblical Hermeneutical principles, and I can say already in all gravity, that having read his first posting, when we apply Biblical Hermeneutics to his statements, they practically all fall headlong into doctrinal error.

Right.

Then explain why it is you avoided answering even one proposal and analyzing my theology with Biblical Hermeneutical principles?

Hollow deflection, that is all you have offered.

Deny that, SwordMaster.

Especially since he denies archaeological discoveries which demonstrate the erroneous doctrines of Reformed Theology,

You would first need to analyze Reformed Theology with proper Biblical Hermeneutical principles, then, you will need to correlate my theology to Reformed Theology, then present your theology with a scriptural basis to support your own proposals, having shown both my theology as well as Reformed Theology in error.

I mean...isn't that what you have been lecturing about?

And we know what it means when someone says "You need to do this" but they do not themselves do it.

Right?

particularly in the area of grace vs law, and faith vs works...

The problem you have is not understanding that Scripture does not present a Grace versus Law, Faith versus Works theology, and in fact have said "we do not keep the Law of God," yourself lacking the ability to discern between Covenant and the revealed will of God, merging these teachings into a muddied sinkhole of theological disaster.

Would you like me to quote you on this? You see, I do not make charges unless I can quote my antagonist to support the charge.

Understand that it is by grace that we, those who are born again, can keep the Law (which is the revealed will of God given to layman and scholars alike).

Because we have the faith of Jesus Christ we have the ability to do the works which we have been created in Christ Jesus to do.

You, though, seek to teach a modern form of Judaism that is devoid of that which God has revealed to man concerning holiness.

So continue to teach your "salvation by keeping 'covenant obligations' " and I will simply teach salvation through the One that Scripture teaches...Christ.

Continue to teach a self-effort maintenance of salvation and I will continue to teach the preservation of God and the Security of the believer in Christ.

Continue to make being in Christ an effort of man and I will continue to present the Biblical Doctrine of the Power of God unto salvation.

having no idea of the Intertestimental period between the Old and New Testaments, which Biblical Archaeology has filled in that missing information...

Give me a break.

Could I point out the word intertestamental?

but that is another debate page.

Agreed, let's try to focus, eh?

Blessings!

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

I just find it easier to expose error in this manner.

That is actually quite hilarious. The only error you are exposing my your "debate" method is your own ignorance of the facts.

If you want a secular discussion, which seems to be the case, seeing that this response appeals once again to extra-biblical sources as validation of your strategy and position, then you will be disappointed.

Your premise is false, and so are your efforts to codify it. You come off like you know what you are talking about, but it is obvious to observe that you do not. Without the added light from extra-biblical sources, you cannot understand the fullness of the Gospel, which you have clearly demonstrated in your responses here. As I stated, no pastor or Scriptural authority worth his salt denies the importance that extra-biblical sources play in our interpretation of the Scriptures. Only a novice who fails to understand this would take such a position. Perhaps it was a mistake challenging you to a debate, you do not seem to have the...stuff...for it.

And I am greatly disappointed at the false charges as well as the failure to respond to what has been presented, which very much makes my position clear.

Nice try, but they are not false charges...and they do make your position ABUNDANTLY clear, as well as your "method." Am I debating a mature believer, or only one stuck in false bias that is not willing to even consider the ramifications of what one is trying to show him?

And this response is void of a scriptural foundation, but rest in scholarship and the musings of men, which is the very fundamental error that I addressed in My OP.

"Scholarship" and "musings of men"...you are a young person without true Scriptural understanding, aren't you. What do you think a scholar is? He is not always a secular humanist wearing the clothing of a Christian. Your disdain for higher education bleeds through with every one of your assaults. Calvin was considered a scholar, as was Luther...the very founders of the doctrine you are following...so you cut off your nose despite your face.

Care to try again?

presume to lecture about how one interprets scripture.

Presume? Try again. I have given more lectures on the NT Scriptures alone than you have spent days studying the Scriptures. But that is neither here nor there...so far in this debate we have learned that you hold in disdain any king of education in the Scriptures. Christian academia to you is a farce, which leads us to the question of how in the world you are to be considered up-to-date in Scriptural matters...unless you believe (in great error) that the Reformers had everything right when they first penned Reformed Doctrine.

Therefore I will not address the rest of your "rebuttal" because that will be useless, instead we need to deal with how you think your personal theology is accurate, when you received it from men who didn't have it right in the first place...and you reject extra-biblical sources for enlightenment upon the Scriptures.

The Intertestamental period spans the time of history between Malachi and Matthew in your bible. Without taking extra-biblical sources into consideration in the history of the Jews, we cannot arrive at a knowledgeable and accurate understanding of Paul's words here...

Romans 3:20
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Now, if we take your holding on such a passage, we will not put much consideration to work. However, when we examine the OT Scriptures, there is not one place anywhere in the Old Covenant Scriptures where God tells His people that they can be justified in His sight by walking in obedience to the covenant law of the Old Covenant. So where, dear friend, do you suppose those who Paul is addressing came up with that idea?

True, he is writing to believers in Rome, but we have no validation that his audience is not Jewish believers. Somewhere, somehow in the past (hint - during the Intertestimental period)...during the time the Pharisees and Sadducees developed in Israels religious history, they began teaching that one could work their way into heaven by walking in obedience to the law of the covenant.

THAT, my dear friend, is a aberration of the OT Scriptures, and that was what both Jesus and Paul fought against...therefore, since you base your theological holdings upon false information from Reformed sources that also did not take historical Jewish accounts into consideration, your theology is just as false as was theirs. We KNOW what Paul was talking about and addressing ONLY because of extra-biblical historical and cultural sources.

So now the question abides...are you one who seeks the truth of the Scriptures, or are you one who only came here to argue what you only think you know as truth?

Will you consider extra-biblical sources in order to glean appropriate light so that we can accurately and correctly interpret the Scriptures? Or are you going to close your self off to those historically accurate sources and choose to cling to your self-ordained bias?

If you choose the latter, I highly recommend that you stop teaching others your false doctrines, because you will pay for that in the life to come, and I don't wish that on anyone.

Blessings!

[S.T. Ranger]

I just find it easier to expose error in this manner.

That is actually quite hilarious. The only error you are exposing my your "debate" method is your own ignorance of the facts.

If you want a secular discussion, which seems to be the case, seeing that this response appeals once again to extra-biblical sources as validation of your strategy and position, then you will be disappointed.

Your premise is false, and so are your efforts to codify it. You come off like you know what you are talking about, but it is obvious to observe that you do not. Without the added light from extra-biblical sources, you cannot understand the fullness of the Gospel, which you have clearly demonstrated in your responses here. As I stated, no pastor or Scriptural authority worth his salt denies the importance that extra-biblical sources play in our interpretation of the Scriptures. Only a novice who fails to understand this would take such a position. Perhaps it was a mistake challenging you to a debate, you do not seem to have the...stuff...for it.

And I am greatly disappointed at the false charges as well as the failure to respond to what has been presented, which very much makes my position clear.

Nice try, but they are not false charges...and they do make your position ABUNDANTLY clear, as well as your "method." Am I debating a mature believer, or only one stuck in false bias that is not willing to even consider the ramifications of what one is trying to show him?

And this response is void of a scriptural foundation, but rest in scholarship and the musings of men, which is the very fundamental error that I addressed in My OP.

"Scholarship" and "musings of men"...you are a young person without true Scriptural understanding, aren't you. What do you think a scholar is? He is not always a secular humanist wearing the clothing of a Christian. Your disdain for higher education bleeds through with every one of your assaults. Calvin was considered a scholar, as was Luther...the very founders of the doctrine you are following...so you cut off your nose despite your face.

Care to try again?

presume to lecture about how one interprets scripture.

Presume? Try again. I have given more lectures on the NT Scriptures alone than you have spent days studying the Scriptures. But that is neither here nor there...so far in this debate we have learned that you hold in disdain any king of education in the Scriptures. Christian academia to you is a farce, which leads us to the question of how in the world you are to be considered up-to-date in Scriptural matters...unless you believe (in great error) that the Reformers had everything right when they first penned Reformed Doctrine.

Therefore I will not address the rest of your "rebuttal" because that will be useless, instead we need to deal with how you think your personal theology is accurate, when you received it from men who didn't have it right in the first place...and you reject extra-biblical sources for enlightenment upon the Scriptures.

The Intertestamental period spans the time of history between Malachi and Matthew in your bible. Without taking extra-biblical sources into consideration in the history of the Jews, we cannot arrive at a knowledgeable and accurate understanding of Paul's words here...

Romans 3:20
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in His sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Now, if we take your holding on such a passage, we will not put much consideration to work. However, when we examine the OT Scriptures, there is not one place anywhere in the Old Covenant Scriptures where God tells His people that they can be justified in His sight by walking in obedience to the covenant law of the Old Covenant. So where, dear friend, do you suppose those who Paul is addressing came up with that idea?

True, he is writing to believers in Rome, but we have no validation that his audience is not Jewish believers. Somewhere, somehow in the past (hint - during the Intertestimental period)...during the time the Pharisees and Sadducees developed in Israels religious history, they began teaching that one could work their way into heaven by walking in obedience to the law of the covenant.

THAT, my dear friend, is a aberration of the OT Scriptures, and that was what both Jesus and Paul fought against...therefore, since you base your theological holdings upon false information from Reformed sources that also did not take historical Jewish accounts into consideration, your theology is just as false as was theirs. We KNOW what Paul was talking about and addressing ONLY because of extra-biblical historical and cultural sources.

So now the question abides...are you one who seeks the truth of the Scriptures, or are you one who only came here to argue what you only think you know as truth?

Will you consider extra-biblical sources in order to glean appropriate light so that we can accurately and correctly interpret the Scriptures? Or are you going to close your self off to those historically accurate sources and choose to cling to your self-ordained bias?

If you choose the latter, I highly recommend that you stop teaching others your false doctrines, because you will pay for that in the life to come, and I don't wish that on anyone.

Blessings!

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

I will return to the discussion when an actual attempt at a rebuttal is made.

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

STR said...

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

Nice try, but all can see that the focus of every post is not "personal." I am stating facts, if you can't handle a debating fact, then perhaps you should bow out.

None of my "charges" have been demonstrated as false...if you believe they are false, then please show me where and how.

And what Scripture did you present in defense of your position? You posted so many in a rebuttal that it would take way too much time to address them all, which is why I addressed this problem early on.

In a debate you take ONE point (and one point only) and present your view and why, then I present my view and why, and then we each take one more post to argue our view, then we move on to another point.

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

But lets not take this personal.....

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Good luck.

Blessings

[S.T. Ranger]

STR said...

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

Nice try, but all can see that the focus of every post is not "personal." I am stating facts, if you can't handle a debating fact, then perhaps you should bow out.

None of my "charges" have been demonstrated as false...if you believe they are false, then please show me where and how.

And what Scripture did you present in defense of your position? You posted so many in a rebuttal that it would take way too much time to address them all, which is why I addressed this problem early on.

In a debate you take ONE point (and one point only) and present your view and why, then I present my view and why, and then we each take one more post to argue our view, then we move on to another point.

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

But lets not take this personal.....

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Good luck.

Blessings

If you would simply read the posts and respond to them, you would not ask this question:

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Please quote me as presenting this position, as was asked in both responses.

As I said, I will not waste time dealing with personal attacks. Address the posts.

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

STR said...

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

Nice try, but all can see that the focus of every post is not "personal." I am stating facts, if you can't handle a debating fact, then perhaps you should bow out.

None of my "charges" have been demonstrated as false...if you believe they are false, then please show me where and how.

And what Scripture did you present in defense of your position? You posted so many in a rebuttal that it would take way too much time to address them all, which is why I addressed this problem early on.

In a debate you take ONE point (and one point only) and present your view and why, then I present my view and why, and then we each take one more post to argue our view, then we move on to another point.

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

But lets not take this personal.....

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Good luck.

Blessings

If you would simply read the posts and respond to them, you would not ask this question:

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Please quote me as presenting this position, as was asked in both responses.

As I said, I will not waste time dealing with personal attacks. Address the posts.

God bless.

Your only making yourself look bad, not me.

When you post a small book for your rebuttals, I will not waste my time trying to go through all of them...as I said before, that is not how a debate is handled. There was no personal attack in my last post, yet you are trying to persuade those reading them that there is...like I said, you are only making yourself look bad with those kinds of tactics.

Take this chance (again) to address why you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far all you are doing is dodging the question, once again making yourself not very forthright in appearance. (that was not a personal attack, and if you think it was, you have some issues that will forbid further debates).

Address the issue and stop making excuses. Thank you.

[S.T. Ranger]

STR said...

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

Nice try, but all can see that the focus of every post is not "personal." I am stating facts, if you can't handle a debating fact, then perhaps you should bow out.

None of my "charges" have been demonstrated as false...if you believe they are false, then please show me where and how.

And what Scripture did you present in defense of your position? You posted so many in a rebuttal that it would take way too much time to address them all, which is why I addressed this problem early on.

In a debate you take ONE point (and one point only) and present your view and why, then I present my view and why, and then we each take one more post to argue our view, then we move on to another point.

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

But lets not take this personal.....

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Good luck.

Blessings

If you would simply read the posts and respond to them, you would not ask this question:

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Please quote me as presenting this position, as was asked in both responses.

As I said, I will not waste time dealing with personal attacks. Address the posts.

God bless.

Your only making yourself look bad, not me.

When you post a small book for your rebuttals, I will not waste my time trying to go through all of them...as I said before, that is not how a debate is handled. There was no personal attack in my last post, yet you are trying to persuade those reading them that there is...like I said, you are only making yourself look bad with those kinds of tactics.

Take this chance (again) to address why you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far all you are doing is dodging the question, once again making yourself not very forthright in appearance. (that was not a personal attack, and if you think it was, you have some issues that will forbid further debates).

Address the issue and stop making excuses. Thank you.

Still waiting.

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

STR said...

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

Nice try, but all can see that the focus of every post is not "personal." I am stating facts, if you can't handle a debating fact, then perhaps you should bow out.

None of my "charges" have been demonstrated as false...if you believe they are false, then please show me where and how.

And what Scripture did you present in defense of your position? You posted so many in a rebuttal that it would take way too much time to address them all, which is why I addressed this problem early on.

In a debate you take ONE point (and one point only) and present your view and why, then I present my view and why, and then we each take one more post to argue our view, then we move on to another point.

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

But lets not take this personal.....

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Good luck.

Blessings

If you would simply read the posts and respond to them, you would not ask this question:

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Please quote me as presenting this position, as was asked in both responses.

As I said, I will not waste time dealing with personal attacks. Address the posts.

God bless.

Your only making yourself look bad, not me.

When you post a small book for your rebuttals, I will not waste my time trying to go through all of them...as I said before, that is not how a debate is handled. There was no personal attack in my last post, yet you are trying to persuade those reading them that there is...like I said, you are only making yourself look bad with those kinds of tactics.

Take this chance (again) to address why you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far all you are doing is dodging the question, once again making yourself not very forthright in appearance. (that was not a personal attack, and if you think it was, you have some issues that will forbid further debates).

Address the issue and stop making excuses. Thank you.

Still waiting.

God bless.

Then I guess this "debate" is short-lived, for STR refuses to address the issue, and no further debate can take place...unless someone else wants to step in and take his place...if the debate rules allow that.

Let me know.

Blessings!

[S.T. Ranger]

STR said...

I am just not going to waste any further time trying to debate a theological position with someone that makes the focus of every post...personal. You still make false charges without the least attempt to show how the charges are accurate, and you still refuse to address the scripture presented in defense of my position.

Nice try, but all can see that the focus of every post is not "personal." I am stating facts, if you can't handle a debating fact, then perhaps you should bow out.

None of my "charges" have been demonstrated as false...if you believe they are false, then please show me where and how.

And what Scripture did you present in defense of your position? You posted so many in a rebuttal that it would take way too much time to address them all, which is why I addressed this problem early on.

In a debate you take ONE point (and one point only) and present your view and why, then I present my view and why, and then we each take one more post to argue our view, then we move on to another point.

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

But lets not take this personal.....

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Good luck.

Blessings

If you would simply read the posts and respond to them, you would not ask this question:

Please, tell our audience exactly WHY you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far you have stated that we do not have to, yet gave no evidence supporting your claim.

Please quote me as presenting this position, as was asked in both responses.

As I said, I will not waste time dealing with personal attacks. Address the posts.

God bless.

Your only making yourself look bad, not me.

When you post a small book for your rebuttals, I will not waste my time trying to go through all of them...as I said before, that is not how a debate is handled. There was no personal attack in my last post, yet you are trying to persuade those reading them that there is...like I said, you are only making yourself look bad with those kinds of tactics.

Take this chance (again) to address why you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far all you are doing is dodging the question, once again making yourself not very forthright in appearance. (that was not a personal attack, and if you think it was, you have some issues that will forbid further debates).

Address the issue and stop making excuses. Thank you.

Still waiting.

God bless.

Then I guess this "debate" is short-lived, for STR refuses to address the issue, and no further debate can take place...unless someone else wants to step in and take his place...if the debate rules allow that.

Let me know.

Blessings!

Still waiting.

You have been addressed in your OP, you have been addressed in your response, and you have been challenged to quote me in support of the claims you have made.

Is this your MO? Refuse to answer, and then claim victory?

Pick one issue, as you have mandated in your rules for debate, and try to address that.

I do not yield this thread to a fill-in, I challenge you to actually respond to something.

Still...waiting.

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

STRanger said...

Still waiting.

You have been addressed in your OP, you have been addressed in your response, and you have been challenged to quote me in support of the claims you have made.

Is this your MO? Refuse to answer, and then claim victory?

Pick one issue, as you have mandated in your rules for debate, and try to address that.

I do not yield this thread to a fill-in, I challenge you to actually respond to something.

Still...waiting.

God bless.

No, no, no...that is not my MO, but you are demonstrating what yours must be...one more time...the first issue was picked, and you consistently refuse to address it. Here is the history of that issue you refuse to address...

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

That was my second attempt to get you to address the first subject, and here is the third...

Take this chance (again) to address why you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far all you are doing is dodging the question, once again making yourself not very forthright in appearance. (that was not a personal attack, and if you think it was, you have some issues that will forbid further debates).

The first issue we must deal with is your refusal to acknowledge extra-biblical sources for information that regards and gives enlightenment to the Scriptural text. I have already given you the reasons why we cannot disallow them, now you present some kind of coherent evidence (not your personal opinion) as to why we cannot glean helpful and insightful enlightenment from such extra-biblical sources.

The ball has been in your court for the last three posts.......

We are all waiting on you.....

[S.T. Ranger]

STRanger said...

Still waiting.

You have been addressed in your OP, you have been addressed in your response, and you have been challenged to quote me in support of the claims you have made.

Is this your MO? Refuse to answer, and then claim victory?

Pick one issue, as you have mandated in your rules for debate, and try to address that.

I do not yield this thread to a fill-in, I challenge you to actually respond to something.

Still...waiting.

God bless.

No, no, no...that is not my MO, but you are demonstrating what yours must be...one more time...the first issue was picked, and you consistently refuse to address it. Here is the history of that issue you refuse to address...

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all. I suspect it is because you are over your head and refuse to acknowledge when you are in error and correct yourself.

That was my second attempt to get you to address the first subject, and here is the third...

Take this chance (again) to address why you believe you can know the Spirit's intended meaning of the Scriptures without studying them through Biblical Hermeneutical principles, which includes historical events and customary practices. So far all you are doing is dodging the question, once again making yourself not very forthright in appearance. (that was not a personal attack, and if you think it was, you have some issues that will forbid further debates).

The first issue we must deal with is your refusal to acknowledge extra-biblical sources for information that regards and gives enlightenment to the Scriptural text. I have already given you the reasons why we cannot disallow them, now you present some kind of coherent evidence (not your personal opinion) as to why we cannot glean helpful and insightful enlightenment from such extra-biblical sources.

The ball has been in your court for the last three posts.......

We are all waiting on you.....

Not sure who the "we" is, but to all of you, lol, the challenge is to at least attempt to respond to anything...

My position:
With the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants and their operating principles through continued Biblical archaeology, theology has to be modified...

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology."

Concerning "New Covenant Application to the New Testament Scriptures," It is interesting that one would consider the covenant practices of men to dictate the New Covenant, or, for that matter...any Covenant established by God.

So my position as a whole will be laid out in the responses given to the OP, which have already been responded to in another thread in which my antagonist refused to respond to.

I will just present the true position of the OP concerning the New Covenant and salvation in general:

What Christ did on the cross was eternal...YOU, however, do not rate that work of atonement unless you REMAIN abiding in the covenant. That is my meaning, and it is clear.


You only have sanctification as long as you remain abiding in the New Covenant...


and if you cease to abide therein, then you no longer have sanctification. It is only a gift of the covenant to covenant participants.


Just because Christ is the Living Covenant does not mean that the terms and stipulations of the covenant are void...if they were, then there would be not new covenant law, yet we find that law is not only part of the new covenant, but the terms of the new covenant IS law.


Yes, again...they only pertain to the participant as long as he remains abiding in the covenant. By interpreting the NT Scriptures outside of covenant principles which guides their proper interpretation, you come up void of understanding them. EVERY WORD in the NT Scriptures hold to six covenant principles, and the main one that deals with showing you that your interpretation is in error, is principle #4...The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant. Apparently, the main issue you and I have to deal with before we can continue, is your idea of how one participates in the New Covenant...


Again, you assume what you don't understand.Everything that God accomplished through Christ is done...one time and for ever, and no one can add to that. Period. However, that is not what I am saying like you suppose that I am. What I am trying to show you, is that this eternal application does not apply to you unless you are abiding in the covenant (in Christ).

You can abide in Christ today, next year, and for five years after that, and then the following year stop abiding in Christ and return to the world. Once you make that decision in your heart, you no longer abide in Christ, you no longer abide in the covenant, and therefore none of the elements of the atonement in Christ apply to you any longer. That is what the Scriptures teach when one understands covenant principles, and that the NT is a covenant, not as "testament."



The atonement cleanses and is the basis for the forgiveness of sin ONLY as long as one remain abiding in the new covenant by which that atonement comes...


Christ's atonement does NOT forgive your future sins,


Christ paid for sin, and as long as one remains abiding in the covenant with God - in fellowship with God - then one has the continual cleansing of His blood...


Negative...you only remain "complete" as long as you abide in the New Covenant.



you continue to receive cleansing from sin according to i John 1:7 ONLY as long as you remain in fellowship with God through meeting your covenant obligations.


The atonement cleanses and is the basis for the forgiveness of sin ONLY as long as one remain abiding in the new covenant by which that atonement comes...



If you want the texts of our covenant obligations, then I will give them to you.


The New Covenant is the Living Christ, He maintains the actuated covenant - but the covenant is NOT unconditional nor unilateral, it is law based and therefore bilateral and conditional...


Christ became the new covenant High priest, after the order of Melchisedek, and then changed the law we are to keep. We no longer keep the 10 Commandments, but the law of Christ


the fact is that the new covenant has law, which makes you bound to obey it if you want to remain abiding in that covenant.


Christ did away with the Old Covenant and the law that came with it...and established the New Covenant and the new law that came with it.


Like it or not, there is a law for you to walk in obedience to if you desire to remain in covenant relationship with God.


The new covenant is law-based, which means that you have your obligations to meet, or you are out of fellowship with God. it is as simple as that.



There is no "those who are being" in there anywhere, it does not address the believer anywhere, it only addresses Christ's sacrificial act which makes for a continual sanctification for those who remain in the Covenant.



The purpose of covenant law was to function as the obligations in order to remain in the covenant, and therefore remain in covenant relationship with God, and that was it.



Walking in obedience to God does not "save" anyone, it only keeps them in covenant relationship with God.



One who does not abide in God, who ceases to love on others (general statement), ceases to abide in God - in the covenant - and so ceases to have the promises and gifts of the covenant, one of which is eternal life.

Just as the Judaizers of the first century, my antagonist seems determined to not only disregard the truth that the New Covenant is established by God with each individual through faith in Christ...alone.

You can see in the statements above that the view that one must meet "covenant obligations" in order to be saved rather than that which is taught by scripture which is that one must come under obedience to the Gospel in order to be saved.

It is both humorous as well as sad to se a statement such as...

Walking in obedience to God does not "save" anyone, it only keeps them in covenant relationship with God.

"Walking in obedience to God will not save anyone?"

Absurd: men must conform to the revealed will of God, and in this day God has spoken to us through His Son, and it is in the Son of God and what He has done, not what we can do, by which we are saved.

just as any other science (the study of...) must be amended to new discovery of things previously undiscovered by man.

So we reduce the Word of God to a science project?

Something that not until now was just not understood by the Church?

The Reformers did not have this information at hand,

Nor did they need them, for the Doctrine concerning the Covenants of the Bible are found in scripture. And that is a more sure word than the discoveries of men scrabbling in the dust.

Imagine, should the Lord tarry and in a thousand years someone unearthed San Francisco, and men tried to interpret scripture from their discoveries. Would it be heard, "We need a new theology because we have found that this area had gay Pastors..."

...?

But my antagonist has, throughout his declarations (for I cannot say any discussion has yet taken place), held the Reformers in contempt. He has charged me with being a Reformed believer, despite the fact that I have assured him I am not. While there are matters in which I agree with that which is taught by certain Reformers, apparently my antagonist is not aware of the diversity of doctrine found within Reformed Theology.

because it was not discovered until hundreds of years after their deaths, and even then, this pertinent information -

Amazing: so it was not until what, the 17th, 18th century that men had the ability to properly interpret scripture?

Let's see John's teaching:



John 20:30-31

King James Version (KJV)


30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


He also wrote:



1 John 5:11-13

King James Version (KJV)


11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


I think John would be at odds with the proposal that archaeological discoveries are "pertinent" to understanding the Word of God.

Scripture is not given as a secretive code-book discernible to those that have the magic decoder ring, but is given for the very purpose that men might know the will of God and obey.

although being known to the scholars since their discovery - for some reason was not passed down to the grass-roots level of the Church. I have my suspicions as to why, but will refrain from divulging that until later.

I will venture a guess: because the grass roots level of the Church had competent shepherds that kept them from the heresy of liberal theology which would call for new theology and deny that the Word of God is, as it is given, capable of doing this...



2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)


15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


This statement speaks of both Old and New Testaments, as the collective volume of the New Testament had not yet been assembled (though they were circulated among the Churches), though there is a focus on the Gospel in this epistle, which references the faith of Timothy's grandmother and mother.

The first tenet for this debate must be that this information is not Biblical - that is, it is not found within the pages of the Bible,

I would agree, that is a foundational pillar of denying that which is actually found in scripture.

And we will get to that.

On this point I will just say that cultural information does indeed enhance our understanding of Scripture, but, I will say plainly that we can, apart from understanding the cultural aspects of ancient cultures, understand what is given to us in scripture, particularly in regards to what Scripture actually gives us.

For example, we will see shortly, when we actually consult the Word of God rather than archaeological studies, that despite the fact that ancient custom saw covenants established through the practice of cutting animals in two and then the two making covenant walking through the middle of those halves...only God walked through the halves when He established the Abrahamic Covenant:




Genesis 15

King James Version (KJV)


7 And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:


The fact is that among the Covenants established throughout scripture, there is only one covenant that is an If/Then Covenant, meaning, "If you do this(Israel)...I will do this (God)."

Abraham did not participate in this Covenant, it was God that sealed this covenant, for He walked between the halves alone.

So too with the New Covenant, men do not participate, nor do they collaborate with God to be brought under the New Covenant, for it is God alone that promised and established the Covenant through the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ. One is brought into relationship with God only when they are reconciled to God, which is accomplished by the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Who convicts unbelievers of sin and brings them to an understanding of their condition and the necessary righteousness one must have in order to come into the presence of God.

In other words, He convicts men of their lost state and their destiny of Hell, and that if they want to go to Heaven...they must believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and specifically....that Christ died for them, accomplishing what they would never, no matter what level of obedience they attained to, be able to do.

as is the same with other pertinent discoveries which attend sound Scriptural interpretation.

Correction: discoveries that pertain to that which is recorded in scripture do not dictate Theology, they only serve to validate what is written.

The OP has this reversed, apparently, feeling that truth can be excavated, rather than exegeted.

Because in order to fully understand the intended meaning of the Scriptures, we must understand numerous things outside of Holy Writ,

Not true.

The scriptures themselves are capable of providing that which man needs in order to come into relationship with God:


2 Timothy 3:15-17

King James Version (KJV)


15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

the customs of the days when the Scriptures were written, the history, and other things.

A man can understand the Covenants apart from a subscription to the Discovery Channel, believe it or not.

Melchizedek is a great example of this, for the information we have about him is enough.

The Bible is complete in the necessary information that man needs: it was God, after all, that provided it. To propose that it is necessary to have extra-biblical information calls into question the very revelation God has given to man.

The discovery and application of ANE covenant principles fall into that custom and history of God's dealings with mankind - therefore it is necessary to have knowledge and understanding of ANE covenant form and principles, because the New Covenant IS a covenant fashioned after ANE covenant form...

So only those familiar with ANE covenant principles...simply cannot understand the Covenants established by God?

Amazing.

And I would like to know the Ancient Near East Covenant that prescribed the death of the Son of God for the Atonement of the sins of the world.

Got a link for that? Can it be seen where the New Covenant replicates the customs of the ANE?

the New Covenant IS an ANE covenant,

Incorrect: the New Covenant is the plan of redemption which has been progressively revealed to man throughout the Ages. The first mention of the Gospel begins in Genesis and as we trek through scripture we see an expansion on the very same promise.

The revelation of the Mystery of the Gospel unfolds when the New Covenant is established and the Comforter begins His ministry. But we see that the Gospel is the Hidden Wisdom of God, known to Him before the world was formed:



1 Corinthians 2:6-10

King James Version (KJV)


6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.


Most will read this and think it is speaking about Heaven, and what is will be like. But what is in view is the Gospel, which is the means of the reconciling of man to God, thus being brought into relationship with God through the New Covenant.

and therefore the principles of operation of ANE covenants is to be added to our Biblical Hermeneutic...or else one skews proper interpretation of the NT Scriptures.

Right. Because before the 17th or 18th century discoveries...the Church was simply incapable of being made perfect by the mere Word of God.

Amazing.

ANE Covenant Principles:

1.  A covenant is not in force until after both parties agree to all of the elements, terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, gifts and obligations of the covenant agreement, and then inaugurate and ratify the covenant relationship. At that point all elements of the covenant are legally binding upon all parties involved.

The New Covenant is not dependent upon man's involvement.

Many consider themselves to co-operate with God by believing, but we see that it is God that first took on the flesh of man, died to make atonement for sin, gave men the Word of God, sent the Comforter to convict men through that Word, regenerates man when they yield to that convicting ministry, indwells them that they might walk in His statues and keep His judgments, and keeps them through His power...

...not one thing a man can contribute to this work.

For the "free will" believers that think they contribute to their salvation, all I can say is that the only free will a man will effect in regards to salvation and the New Covenant is to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

And not even this is effective all the time, just ask Jonah and Paul.

2.  Once the covenant has been agreed upon and entered into by both parties, it cannot be altered unless both parties agree to such alteration, usually in response to some unforeseen variable at the time of the inauguration of the covenant.

I would truly like to meet the man that decides..."Well, I am just tired of being born again. I am tired of being a new creature. I am tired of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit."

These things are not man's decision, but God's.

Again, we see in the Abrahamic Covenant that it is God that makes promise, and God that keeps the promise. For this reason Paul wrote:



Galatians 3:16-18

King James Version (KJV)


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.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


His point is that the promise of redemption had nothing to do with Abraham, his works, or even his faith. He believed God, to be sure, but keep in mind that the promises preceded the belief, just as they do with every single one of us that comes to faith in Christ.

We believe because God has given us that which we can place our faith in, even as Abraham did.

To promote a cooperative effort between man and God for salvation is not only putting the cart before the horse, it is murdering the horse, putting him in the cart, and pushing it to an idol to offer up this miserable sacrifice in place of the Sacrifice of Christ.

3.  Entering into covenant involved establishing not only a binding legal relationship between both parties, but was also recognized as one of the most strongly held to relationships in the cultures in which they thrived.

Wonderful.

Now lets see what the Word of God has to say about it:



Galatians 3:17-22

King James Version (KJV)


17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Not only can God be a Mediator of one...He is. No man counseled God concerning how He would redeem sinful man...no-one.

The promises given to Abraham, which was partial revelation of the Hidden Wisdom of God, were not made void by the establishment of the Law, the Covenant.

So get out of the dust of the earth and into the Bible itself, and understand that the promises precede the Covenants. And in particular, the Covenant of Law was given, as it has been mentioned numerous times, as a temporary Covenant which most will acknowledge was never meant to provide salvation for man. The atonement was temporary and temporal, contrasted with the eternal quality of the New Covenant conditions were supplied by and through God quite apart from man's involvement.

Unless you want to bring up the fact that man's involvement is why the Lord died on the Cross.

4.  The terms, stipulations, promises, blessings, benefits, and gifts of the covenant are only applicable to those who are participants in that specific covenant.

Let me quote this again:


Galatians 3:17-22

King James Version (KJV)


17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.




There is simply no way to insert man's involvement in the Covenants, particularly the New Covenant.

5.  All of the elements of the covenant in question, be they terms, stipulations, promises, benefits, and gifts, or obligations, are to be interpreted solely from within the context of the covenant from which they originate.

The Covenant of Law held within it one primary promise: physical life. "Do this and live" is the general theme.

The New Covenant holds a primary promise as well: eternal life through faith in Christ.

I have already asked before...show how Abraham met "covenant obligations" that the promises be kept.

What exactly did Abraham do to procure a son. for example?

6.  None of the obligations of the covenant are legally binding upon the participants until after the covenant has been inaugurated and then ratified.

Ratified by the blood of Christ quite apart from man's efforts, and inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost. individually the New Covenant is entered through the New Birth which is accompanied by the indwelling of the Spirit of God.

Both of these, promised by God in the Old Testament, are precisely what the Lord referred to when He told Nicodemus:



John 3

King James Version (KJV)


3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


Now see the promise of the New Birth:



Ezekiel 36:24-27

King James Version (KJV)


24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Practically all of these same principles can be observed as standard operating procedures in modern contracts, and a covenant is indeed partly contractual in nature, but the difference between a contract and a covenant is found in that the later not only establishes a binding legal agreement, but it also establishes a binding legal RELATIONSHIP so intimate in its nature, in some cultures in which they are (and were) practiced, they constitute a relationship which precedes familial blood relationships.

So we equate God's Covenants to the contracts of men?

What is binding is the Promise of God, and God will not renege on His promises.

Men do, but not God, and to teach that God will not Keep His promises is to call into question God Himself.

The second thing to uphold here is that Christ is the living New Covenant...

Not sure how this is thought to be upheld, when the effectiveness of the Cross is denied and men are taught that they must "keep covenant obligations" to remain saved.

The fact is, if one is not saved when they are saved, then there is no salvation.

Isaiah 42:6
"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,

Isaiah 49:8
Thus says the LORD: "In a time of favor I have answered you; in a day of salvation I have helped you; I will keep you and give you as a covenant to the people, to establish the land, to apportion the desolate heritages,

These passages are part of a larger section of Messianic Prophecies, telling the Messiah that He will be a living covenant. This has great implications upon the interpretation of key passages of Scripture which the Reformers were totally ignorant of.

Again with the Reformers...

Sorry, but it is your doctrine in focus, and it stands in contrast to the teachings of scripture. That is likely the reason you refuse to address the posts in the other thread. You cannot deny the scriptures that make it absolutely clear that those that are saved are saved eternally.

And by the way...many passages in the Old Testament are "part of the larger section of Messianic Prophecies." For most of the Old Testament testifies of Christ Himself.

What is remarkable is that there is an attempt to create a doctrinal position that in large part ignores the revelation provided in the New Testament, the very scriptures which reveal the Mysttery of the Gospel, which was previously withheld from men.

According to application of ANE covenant principles (particularly principle #4), the gospel as we understand it must be amended

Which is the attempt of all liberal and heretical doctrinal constructs.

The truth is that the Gospel has remained the same since the First Century, and will never change according to the whims of men.

to this newest discovery of Biblical interpretational importance, which is according to the following: (this is where the "argument" begins...)

As principle #4 states, ALL promises, gifts, blessings, and benefits of the New Covenant are applicable ONLY to those who are participating in that covenant. This is where the covenant legal term "in Christ" comes into play.

Actually, the "argument begins" with a very simple passage to understand:



Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

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.


And by the way, the term "In Christ" speaks of those that have been sanctified, have been forgiven, have been immersed in Christ through the operation of the power of God...not men. One either is in Christ, or they are not.

Romans 3:24
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Justification and redemption are only found "in Christ," which is to say, "in the covenant."

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Timothy 1:1
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God according to the promise of the life that is in Christ Jesus,

1 John 5:11
And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

The amazing thing is that the OP actually denies that one is justified or redeemed if they are in Christ.

That does not happen unless one "keeps covenant obligations."

Eternal life is found ONLY "in Christ"...

The amazing thing is that the OP does not believe that one in Christ has eternal life. Again, that only occurs if one keeps covenant obligations.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, ...

Sanctification is found ONLY "in Christ"...

The amazing thing is, the OP does not believe that one in Christ is sanctified. Not unless they keep covenant obligations.

Galatians 3:26
for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Only those "in Christ" are sons of God...

The amazing thing is, the OP does not believe those in Christ are sons of God...how could they be if they are not sanctified, justified, redeemed, or...saved!

And the OP is not even aware that he denies these things.

Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

We have every spiritual blessing and promise ONLY "in Christ"...

Only?

That is the big problem here, lol.

The fact is that we have received the promises of God.

God promised to redeem man through Christ...He has done that for us that are saved.

God has promised to place His Spirit in those that He saves...He has done that for us that are saved.

God has promised to regenerate those that place their faith in Christ...He does that only for those of us that are saved.

God has promised to finish the work He begins in us...He will.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Salvation is found ONLY "in Christ"...

Not the salvation as taught by the OP: that salvation is earned by keeping covenant obligations.

And the OP denies this is his doctrine.

Simply amazing.

All of the elements of the atonement in Christ are found ONLY "in Christ"... (righteousness, holiness, redemption, justification, reconciliation, salvation - deliverance from sin, not eternal life)

Note that last part, folks:

(righteousness, holiness, redemption, justification, reconciliation, salvation - deliverance from sin, not eternal life)


Is that what Christ taught?



John 10:27-30

King James Version (KJV)


27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

So far, I do not believe there is a problem here between myself and STRanger, the problem begins to take shape in the following.

STRanger believes that once a person enters into Christ, he cannot exit Christ...but according to Scripture, this belief is folly...

1 John 3:23-24
And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as He has commanded us. Whoever keeps His commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us.

S.T. Ranger not only believes this, he has posted quite a few scriptures which went without response in the thread "Hebrews 10."

The OP has stated that the Law of God as taught in the Old Testament does not apply to us, and due to no response given by the OP, I am not sure how he feels that Christians can murder, lie, steal, et cetera.

John makes it clear that obedience to God is an evidence of salvation, as opposed to the OP's desire to teach that it is the means of salvation:




1 John 2:19

King James Version (KJV)


19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Abiding in God is the same as abiding in Christ, and according to this passage, one only remains abiding in God (Christ) as long as he remains walking in obedience to the two commandments God has given for the New Covenant - faith and loving on people when the opportunities present themselves (Galatians 6:10).

Well, what about keeping the statutes of the God and HIs judgments? What about establishing the Law of God?

To say that God has given two commandments (or "laws) for the New Covenant is a ridiculous proposal. It clarifies the understanding of the OP in a way that I doubt seriously he meant to.

The Law of God in regards to the will of God has not changed: it is still not acceptable to worship other gods, murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, et cetera. We still have a mandate to keep the Sabbath Holy, though for the born again believer, that has been expanded to keeping every day holy to Holy God.

And the primary reason is that because God indwells us...we can.

Jesus ratifies this statement above here...

John 14:23
Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

I will again mention that this must be understood in it's context, which is prophetic.

What will take place in the future (from the time of this teaching) is the Lord will return to Heaven, He will send the Comforter, and this will take place when the New Covenant is established.

The "word" that will be kept by the disciples in the future, after they have been baptized with the Holy Spirit...is the Gospel.

Not one of them understand the Gospel at this point, which is obvious in the events that follow.

Peter did not "keep the word of the Lord" just hours after sitting under the Lord's teaching here...he vehemently denied he even knew the Lord.

and in chapter 15, where Christ tells us to remain abiding in Him, otherwise...

John 15:6
If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.

Again, this refers to the future: name one disciple that can be considered to have abided in Christ.

You can try, but the fact is that the Lord Himself denies that they will abide in Him before the New Covenant is established:



John 16:29-32

King James Version (KJV)


29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


Furthermore, we see in scripture a principle that is Biblical: those that are in Christ will bear fruit, and this is seen in the very proof-text offered to undermine the Cross of Christ:



John 15

King James Version (KJV)


4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


Again, we see a prophetic nature to this teaching, and in view is the Lord's call to the disciples that when the things that take place happen...they abide. Again, the disciples do not abide in Christ after this teaching, they are scattered:




Matthew 26:31

King James Version (KJV)


31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.


John 16:32

King James Version (KJV)


32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

And again, we are told that by loving on others we remain abiding in fellowship with God (another illusion to covenant relationship)...

1 John 2:10; 1:7
Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling...if we walk in the light, as God is in the light, we have fellowship with one another...

And it is truth we must abide in. That is John's point.

Abiding in Christ (the living covenant) is conditional upon walking in obedience to the law of the New Covenant;

Right. Two laws as prescribed by the OP.

The contradictions are so many that it would take a month to expand on each.

every ANE covenant had law, it is called covenant law, and that law has only one purpose: it is the conditions one must follow in order to remain abiding in the covenant from which it originates.

Great: you consider the Covenant of God to be an ANE covenant and I will simply view it as it is: the Covenant of God.

The covenant law of the New Covenant does not give eternal life, that is not its function. It has only ONE function - to remain abiding in the New Covenant, which is Christ.

What's the difference? To remain in covenant one must meet covenant obligation which in turn means that one cannot be receive eternal life unless through their efforts they keep these "two laws" which is without question a new theology and quite separate from actual Biblical Doctrine.

I end this portion with this...if one ceases to remain abiding in the covenant, by ceasing to practice loving on people when such opportunities present themselves, and one has the means by which to minister to them but they choose not to, then after practicing this attitude he will fall from grace, he will no longer remain abiding in Christ. Therefore, as covenant principle #4 ratifies the passages above, one will no longer remain in Christ, he will no longer remain having eternal life, salvation, redemption, reconciliation, the promises or gifts of the covenant...

There it is folks: works-based salvation which undermines the Person of Christ and His work.

And the OP is not even aware that he does so. Denial will likely be forthcoming.

As Jesus Himself reiterates...

John 16:1
I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away.

The Lord was not "reiterating," He was teaching them a number of things which was intended to clarify what was taking place. He said "Let not your hearts be troubled," for He had told them He was going away, and if we are careful about our study we will see that the prophetic is evident, and it points to the Cross, the Ascension, the sending of the Comforter, and the establishment of the New Covenant on the Day of Pentecost, at which time the Disciples were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

And I will be honest: I have invested a lot of time in the other thread so I am at a point where no more time will be devoted to someone that does not respond to posts that are addressed.

I will not respond to any post that has writing within my own statements, different colors or not. I have posted proper quoting procedure and I will not do the work separating repsonses.

God bless.

[S.T. Ranger]

And if you don't mind, please spare me lectures about proper hermeneutic approach which your posts are devoid of.

As I said...

...still waiting.

Everything in the OP was addressed, now, the ball is in your court.

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

And if you don't mind, please spare me lectures about proper hermeneutic approach which your posts are devoid of.

As I said...

...still waiting.

Everything in the OP was addressed, now, the ball is in your court.

God bless.

Let's try one more time.

The proper format for a debate is this: First I make my opening statement, which I have.
Then you are to make your opening statement, which you have not...
Then we pick one topic out of all topics the debate will include, which I did.
Then I expound on that one topic, which I have.
Then, you give your reasons why the first topic is...whatever you claim it to be, and back your reasoning with Scripture. To date, you have not.
Then, after you give your reasoning and  expound on it...we each have one more short go at the topic, and then move on to the next one, which, since I picked the first topic, it is your turn to pick the second, and the process begins over again.

So...rebutting my whole opening statement is NOT the way to debate something, especially since the New Covenant has so many variable doctrines within it. When we debate the subject properly and systematically, we must take one topic at a time.

I hope you can understand this, because I entered into this debate...to debate, not lob Scriptural "hand-grenades" at each other.

If you cannot understand how a debate works...or worse, refuse to follow those guidelines, then there is no further reason for carrying on.

All you did above was to re-paste your original..."mess" that took up practically the entire page, addressing everything in one shot of my opening statement. Anyone who is following this debate can see that this will not work, especially in the manner in which you make your rebuttals...they are FAR too long and hit multiple topics. A proper debate which leads to learning cannot be handled in this manner. I do hope you see that.

Once again, the ball never left your court...it keeps bouncing off the net.....

[S.T. Ranger]

And if you don't mind, please spare me lectures about proper hermeneutic approach which your posts are devoid of.

As I said...

...still waiting.

Everything in the OP was addressed, now, the ball is in your court.

God bless.

Let's try one more time.

The proper format for a debate is this: First I make my opening statement, which I have.
Then you are to make your opening statement, which you have not...
Then we pick one topic out of all topics the debate will include, which I did.
Then I expound on that one topic, which I have.
Then, you give your reasons why the first topic is...whatever you claim it to be, and back your reasoning with Scripture. To date, you have not.
Then, after you give your reasoning and  expound on it...we each have one more short go at the topic, and then move on to the next one, which, since I picked the first topic, it is your turn to pick the second, and the process begins over again.

So...rebutting my whole opening statement is NOT the way to debate something, especially since the New Covenant has so many variable doctrines within it. When we debate the subject properly and systematically, we must take one topic at a time.

I hope you can understand this, because I entered into this debate...to debate, not lob Scriptural "hand-grenades" at each other.

If you cannot understand how a debate works...or worse, refuse to follow those guidelines, then there is no further reason for carrying on.

All you did above was to re-paste your original..."mess" that took up practically the entire page, addressing everything in one shot of my opening statement. Anyone who is following this debate can see that this will not work, especially in the manner in which you make your rebuttals...they are FAR too long and hit multiple topics. A proper debate which leads to learning cannot be handled in this manner. I do hope you see that.

Once again, the ball never left your court...it keeps bouncing off the net.....

Let me see if I have this correct: how we debate is more important than what we debate? And and an address of the Scripture is to be considered "lobbing Scriptural hand grenades?"

I have already said, pick a topic, if you can pry yourself away from trying to play high school debate class, lol, and we will take it from there. If the responses are too long, then limit your own...I will address every point, though.

Now is there one point in my response to the OP that you would like to focus on?

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

And if you don't mind, please spare me lectures about proper hermeneutic approach which your posts are devoid of.

As I said...

...still waiting.

Everything in the OP was addressed, now, the ball is in your court.

God bless.

Let's try one more time.

The proper format for a debate is this: First I make my opening statement, which I have.
Then you are to make your opening statement, which you have not...
Then we pick one topic out of all topics the debate will include, which I did.
Then I expound on that one topic, which I have.
Then, you give your reasons why the first topic is...whatever you claim it to be, and back your reasoning with Scripture. To date, you have not.
Then, after you give your reasoning and  expound on it...we each have one more short go at the topic, and then move on to the next one, which, since I picked the first topic, it is your turn to pick the second, and the process begins over again.

So...rebutting my whole opening statement is NOT the way to debate something, especially since the New Covenant has so many variable doctrines within it. When we debate the subject properly and systematically, we must take one topic at a time.

I hope you can understand this, because I entered into this debate...to debate, not lob Scriptural "hand-grenades" at each other.

If you cannot understand how a debate works...or worse, refuse to follow those guidelines, then there is no further reason for carrying on.

All you did above was to re-paste your original..."mess" that took up practically the entire page, addressing everything in one shot of my opening statement. Anyone who is following this debate can see that this will not work, especially in the manner in which you make your rebuttals...they are FAR too long and hit multiple topics. A proper debate which leads to learning cannot be handled in this manner. I do hope you see that.

Once again, the ball never left your court...it keeps bouncing off the net.....

Let me see if I have this correct: how we debate is more important than what we debate? And and an address of the Scripture is to be considered "lobbing Scriptural hand grenades?"

I have already said, pick a topic, if you can pry yourself away from trying to play high school debate class, lol, and we will take it from there. If the responses are too long, then limit your own...I will address every point, though.

Now is there one point in my response to the OP that you would like to focus on?

God bless.

Let me see if I have this correct: how we debate is more important than what we debate?

No, they are EQUALLY important, because if we do not follow through with a debate according to the rules of debate, then its not a debate, it turns out to be a jumbled mess of rebuttals being thrown left and right. The goal of a debate is to come to a well thought out and presented conclusion concerning the subject being debated. A debate is not just telling each other our view, it is giving sound and reasoned intellectual argumentation regarding the facts of the subject at hand in a persuasive manner. "High school debate class" is where one learned how to properly conduct an intelligent argument...are you telling us that you skipped that class because you thought it was nonsense?

Now is there one point in my response to the OP that you would like to focus on?

Yes, and I already presented it and you have ignored it. It originates from your very first few words in your response...

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology." Concerning "New Covenant Application to the New Testament Scriptures," It is interesting that one would consider the covenant practices of men to dictate the New Covenant, or, for that matter...any Covenant established by God.

My response again...

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all.

This is the first point we must debate. So, now, please give us sound and intellectual reasoning why you don't think we should take extra-biblical resources into consideration when studying the Scriptures (and claiming that the Spirit directs our interpretation of the Scriptures doesn't cut it, because not all who claim to have the Spirit actually DO have the Spirit guiding their theological ideologies).

Blessings!

[S.T. Ranger]

And if you don't mind, please spare me lectures about proper hermeneutic approach which your posts are devoid of.

As I said...

...still waiting.

Everything in the OP was addressed, now, the ball is in your court.

God bless.

Let's try one more time.

The proper format for a debate is this: First I make my opening statement, which I have.
Then you are to make your opening statement, which you have not...
Then we pick one topic out of all topics the debate will include, which I did.
Then I expound on that one topic, which I have.
Then, you give your reasons why the first topic is...whatever you claim it to be, and back your reasoning with Scripture. To date, you have not.
Then, after you give your reasoning and  expound on it...we each have one more short go at the topic, and then move on to the next one, which, since I picked the first topic, it is your turn to pick the second, and the process begins over again.

So...rebutting my whole opening statement is NOT the way to debate something, especially since the New Covenant has so many variable doctrines within it. When we debate the subject properly and systematically, we must take one topic at a time.

I hope you can understand this, because I entered into this debate...to debate, not lob Scriptural "hand-grenades" at each other.

If you cannot understand how a debate works...or worse, refuse to follow those guidelines, then there is no further reason for carrying on.

All you did above was to re-paste your original..."mess" that took up practically the entire page, addressing everything in one shot of my opening statement. Anyone who is following this debate can see that this will not work, especially in the manner in which you make your rebuttals...they are FAR too long and hit multiple topics. A proper debate which leads to learning cannot be handled in this manner. I do hope you see that.

Once again, the ball never left your court...it keeps bouncing off the net.....

Let me see if I have this correct: how we debate is more important than what we debate? And and an address of the Scripture is to be considered "lobbing Scriptural hand grenades?"

I have already said, pick a topic, if you can pry yourself away from trying to play high school debate class, lol, and we will take it from there. If the responses are too long, then limit your own...I will address every point, though.

Now is there one point in my response to the OP that you would like to focus on?

God bless.

Let me see if I have this correct: how we debate is more important than what we debate?

No, they are EQUALLY important, because if we do not follow through with a debate according to the rules of debate, then its not a debate, it turns out to be a jumbled mess of rebuttals being thrown left and right.

Okay, let me see if I have this correct this time: you will only debate if we debate according to your rules, which are high school debate rules?

lol

That my response was an on topic detailed address of not just the subject at hand but addressed everything you stated seems to me to be about as thorough a response as one could ask for. But, I will, in order to try to revitalize this debate, begin with the point below, and see if this is satisfactory.

The goal of a debate is to come to a well thought out and presented conclusion concerning the subject being debated. A debate is not just telling each other our view, it is giving sound and reasoned intellectual argumentation regarding the facts of the subject at hand in a persuasive manner.

You are free to point out what you consider was not "well thought out." lol

And I would think, seeing that the topic revolves around what is taught in Scripture, that the posted Scripture verses presented to support my views which were in fact in opposition to yours...would be a clue to the fact that my response is not only substantiated by the Word of God it has been presented for response, at which point you show why I am just "telling my view" and not "giving sound and reasoned argumentation.

Like I keep saying...still waiting.

"High school debate class" is where one learned how to properly conduct an intelligent argument...are you telling us that you skipped that class because you thought it was nonsense?

I did in fact skip that class.

Does that mean, that because you took it, I am not a worthy antagonist?

And it had nothing to do with thinking it was nonsense, so please discontinue supplying your guesswork.

Now is there one point in my response to the OP that you would like to focus on?

Yes, and I already presented it and you have ignored it. It originates from your very first few words in your response...

My position: Sound doctrine originates from the Word of God...not man's interpretation of the Word of God nor...archeological discoveries, which, I might add, have verified the scriptures rather than called for a need for "new theology." Concerning "New Covenant Application to the New Testament Scriptures," It is interesting that one would consider the covenant practices of men to dictate the New Covenant, or, for that matter...any Covenant established by God.

My response again...

Now, if you would like to try again, I began arguing my point that we CANNOT simply take sola scriptura and nothing else...the ONLY reason why the Reformers took this stand was because they were IGNORANT of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts, and I gave you an example of that, yet you did not address that at all.

Again, you present a false position which is not my own. That I view Scripture as the Sole Authority on which Doctrine is based does not mean that I believe we ignore that which is around us. That includes creation as well as the social structures upon this earth.

As far as the Reformers being "ignorant of how historical customs play upon our modern understanding of ancient texts," that is nothing short of stating that knowledge that has arisen since the time of the Reformers has cast a different angle on how we interpret Scripture. First, you make the mistake of thinking that I am bound to Reformed Theology. While there will be that which I am in agreement with concerning Reformed Theology, you will find that my doctrine stands in opposition on some points, enough that those that are hyper Reformed would likely question my very salvation.

Second, what example are you referring to? Could you give the post number and the quote? If you don't mind?

Third, no-one that has read even a few of my posts would think I deny the influence of the Comforter in instructing us concerning the Word of God, beginning before salvation and after salvation takes place. It is my view that nothing is made understandable to men that is not revealed by God.

And yes, that includes those that happened to skip debate class in High School, lol

And finally, the focal point, as far as I am concerned, is your view that implies that a proper understanding of Scripture is reliant on Archaeology:

Quote from: SwordMaster on December 08, 2013, 12:53:25 PM

    My position:
    With the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenants and their operating principles through continued Biblical archaeology, theology has to be modified...

That statement should make even the most basic Bible Student shudder.

This is the first point we must debate. So, now, please give us sound and intellectual reasoning why you don't think we should take extra-biblical resources into consideration when studying the Scriptures

Here is one:


Matthew 24:35

King James Version (KJV)


35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.



Do you consider this a sound and intellectual position? Or not?



Psalm 111:10

King James Version (KJV)


10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.




Psalm 119:11

King James Version (KJV)


11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.




Proverbs 9:10

King James Version (KJV)


10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.



Yes, there is much "theology" that needs to be modified, but, seeking to modify it by Archaeology is not the answer. Archaeology has affirmed Scripture on a number of occasions, but, as I have stressed since entering into this conversation, the Word of God stands as given to men by God, and it is the responsibility of men to properly interpret. It does not change, though men do, cultures do, languages do.

You have falsely accused me of denying a need for certain scholarly pursuits, which can be seen in the responses I have already done. What I will say, to make clear, is that the average sincere Bible Student, apart from higher education, can in fact come to a better understanding of scripture than the scholar who's heart is not right with God. That is a truth I think I can reasonably support from Scripture.

Not one Scribe, Lawyer, Pharisee, or Sadducee was chosen of the Lord to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom.

(and claiming that the Spirit directs our interpretation of the Scriptures doesn't cut it, because not all who claim to have the Spirit actually DO have the Spirit guiding their theological ideologies).

I agree with that entirely, but, for the purpose of this discussion we assume that those involved are in fact saved and born again, indwelt by God Who teaches those that seek after Him.

So "claiming that the Spirit directs our interpretation" is in fact not a claim, it is simply a Biblical truth.




John 14:26

King James Version (KJV)


26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.




John 16:13-15

King James Version (KJV)


13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.



1 Corinthians 2:11-13

King James Version (KJV)


11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.



1 John 2:27-28

King James Version (KJV)


27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.




Now, understand that this does not mean that I ignore the fact that God has gifted men for the purpose of teaching and that we profit from the instruction God gives us through able ministers and worthy elders who have not only a sound grasp of Scripture but a life experience by which it is placed into a proper context for the purpose of application, but...

...none of that precedes the very work of instruction that God is performing in the Body of Christ.

Can we benefit from certain scholarly disciplines? But we do not let them become the means for either concluding what Scripture teaches nor as a reason to "modify" theology. Man is responsible to learn what is taught in Scripture...not to give it meaning.

Blessings!

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

From STranger...

Okay, let me see if I have this correct this time: you will only debate if we debate according to your rules, which are high school debate rules?

lol

Again...this is a debate section of the forum, which entails rules of argumentation (high school debate rules, according to you) and you are not approaching the subject matter from the angle of a debate. I don't have time to answer every single line you put out, and that is not a debate, what you are doing is simply arguing which gets no where.

This is a debate area.
If you don't want to debate according to standard debate rules, that's fine...

[S.T. Ranger]

From STranger...

Okay, let me see if I have this correct this time: you will only debate if we debate according to your rules, which are high school debate rules?

lol

Again...this is a debate section of the forum, which entails rules of argumentation (high school debate rules, according to you) and you are not approaching the subject matter from the angle of a debate. I don't have time to answer every single line you put out, and that is not a debate, what you are doing is simply arguing which gets no where.

This is a debate area.
If you don't want to debate according to standard debate rules, that's fine...

Could you post the rules or give a link for them?

God bless.

[SwordMaster]

From STranger...

Okay, let me see if I have this correct this time: you will only debate if we debate according to your rules, which are high school debate rules?

lol

Again...this is a debate section of the forum, which entails rules of argumentation (high school debate rules, according to you) and you are not approaching the subject matter from the angle of a debate. I don't have time to answer every single line you put out, and that is not a debate, what you are doing is simply arguing which gets no where.

This is a debate area.
If you don't want to debate according to standard debate rules, that's fine...

Could you post the rules or give a link for them?

God bless.

Standard debates are between groups, so when reducing the debate to one-on-one and in an on-line environment, most debate forums follow this basic model:

There are two debate partners: one for the stated topic, and one against.
The Proposer of the argument (the one for) states his/her position.
Next, the opposer of the topic then states his/her position on that topic.

Next follows usually three rounds of posts each, addressing 1 point of the argument. Each post cannot go beyond 1500 words.

The Proposer posts supporting facts for his first point.
Then the Opposer posts his argument against that point, utilizing supporting facts.
     That concludes round one.

The Proposer argues against the Opposer's post, utilizing facts to support his argument.
Then the Opposer does the same.
     That concludes round two.

The Proposer argues against the Opposer's post, utilizing facts to support his argument.
Then the Opposer does the same.
     That concludes round three.

At the end of round three for that first point, the Proposer posts his concluding statement, and then the Opposer does the same.
Then, the Opposer chooses the next point of discussion in the Proposer's opening statement of the debate, and the next round begins following that above.

That is a more formal debate, I don't think that we maybe need to get that strict.

The main point of a debate is that one point is discussed at a time, and the debaters do not move forward to another point until the first one is exhausted.
One thing I do want to stick with, is that if either one of us wishes to "Conclude" the debate, we both need to agree to do that and then post our concluding remarks on the point under discussion.

Again, in case you are still up to it, my first point of my introduction is that we must take extra-biblical historical sources into account in order to have greater light of certain biblical texts or subjects.

Blessings!