Jewish Covenant: Valid?

[Teflon93]

This has nothing to do with predestination or Calvin so please don’t derail the conversation.

If you and I enter into an agreement, let’s call it a covenant and you fail to live up to your end of the agreement, I am no longer obliged to fulfil my end.

Again, maybe for the 12th time, some covenants are conditional and of course some aren’t.

I’m not sure why you are stuck on this issue as this point seems to me to be the easiest one to grasp.

It’s not a derailer; it’s a lever to aid your understanding.

1. God knows all.
2. God is eternal.
3. Therefore, God knew whether the Old Covenant would be kept or broken before crafting it.

See how that fits into the Calvinist view? Isn’t that where you get the “Law as curse” notion?

Except Christ didn’t describe the Law as a curse, but as a blessing—he encouraged people to obey it. Quoted that above.

Why would he do such a thing if he knew it would be completely invalid within 3 years tops?

 

[Calvinator]

The current Catechism just celebrated its 15th birthday, so it’s taught what it’s taught for at least 15 years in the past.

You still haven’t answered whether the Ten Commandments, the centerpiece of the Old Covenant, are still in force. Yes or no?

The Church cannot teach heretical doctrine. God keeps His promises, and He promised to abide with the Church He founded.

Feel free to join us and enjoy the heresy-free lifestyle.

I have stated repeatedly that I would appreciate anyone showing me a papal decree or document from a council PRIOR TO THE 20TH CENTURY that agrees with your position that the Mosaic covenant is still valid. 15 years just doesn’t cut it.

Additionally, I have answered your question about the decalogue at least two or three times, once directed to another poster but multiple time nevertheless.

Yes, the 10 commandments have been brought over into the new covenant but that is the ONLY reason they are still valid.

 

[Teflon93]

I should be offended but that’s pretty funny.

I was just tweaking you.

I will state for the benefit of the lurkers that I have tremendous respect for you, my brother in Christ, and that while I disagree with you on some number of things, you present arguments, support them with evidence, and engage in discussion at a high and charitable level.

That sometimes gets lost in the back-and-forth, and I sometimes forget that threads don’t always carry tone as intended. It has been a great and thought-provoking discussion thus far in my opinion, and you are giving me a lot to think about and dig into.

Thank you, my brother.

 

[Calvinator]

It’s not a derailer; it’s a lever to aid your understanding.

1. God knows all.
2. God is eternal.
3. Therefore, God knew whether the Old Covenant would be kept or broken before crafting it.

See how that fits into the Calvinist view? Isn’t that where you get the “Law as curse” notion?

Except Christ didn’t describe the Law as a curse, but as a blessing—he encouraged people to obey it. Quoted that above.

Why would he do such a thing if he knew it would be completely invalid within 3 years tops?

I don’t think you have read my posts.

Here is some scripture to aid in your understanding:
Hebrews 7:18-19: On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 8:7-8: For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Gal 3:10-11: For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”

**
2Cor 3:14-16: Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this
present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old
covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed.**

God never intended the old covenant to be perfect and planned on replacing it with the new and better covenant.

BTW, this has nothing to do with Calvinism and any discussion of such a topic will only completely throw this thread off track.

If you want to discuss predestination, start another thread.

 

[Calvinator]

I was just tweaking you.

I will state for the benefit of the lurkers that I have tremendous respect for you, my brother in Christ, and that while I disagree with you on some number of things, you present arguments, support them with evidence, and engage in discussion at a high and charitable level.

That sometimes gets lost in the back-and-forth, and I sometimes forget that threads don’t always carry tone as intended. It has been a great and thought-provoking discussion thus far in my opinion, and you are giving me a lot to think about and dig into.

Thank you, my brother.

Thanks Teflon.

 

[Teflon93]

I have stated repeatedly that I would appreciate anyone showing me a papal decree or document from a council PRIOR TO THE 20TH CENTURY that agrees with your position that the Mosaic covenant is still valid. 15 years just doesn’t cut it.

I was having a bit of fun with you.

Additionally, I have answered your question about the decalogue at least two or three times, once directed to another poster but multiple time nevertheless.

Yes, the 10 commandments have been brought over into the new covenant but that is the ONLY reason they are still valid.

I missed that. Thanks for clarifying.

That’s an example of us talking past one another, I think.

My read is:

1. A Covenant is valid if any of its terms are still in force, although other terms might be in force or not. (This is because I’m an ex-Sourcing guy; we used to strike terms over time as appropriate without drafting a completely new contract).
2. Christ specifically indicated in Matthew 19 that one path to salvation is to keep the Commandments. This to me raises the question as to whether Jews who do so will be saved.
3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the definitive guide to the faith. I don’t read Latin; I can’t go back to the historical documents with any faith I could interpret them correctly given language and historical usage problems. I rely on the CCC for this reason. So if it says the Church teaches X, it teaches X. In this case, it teaches that the Old Covenant was never revoked. Covenants not revoked are still valid per point 1.

That’s the nub; agreement is not required.

 

[Teflon93]

I’ve already quote from the scripture as well as your own church documents which admit that the Mosaic covenant is imperftect.

Could God have designed it that way? No one is saying that God is imperfect.

But your church uses the phrase “old covenant” and strictly speaking, that means the Mosaic covenant.

Either your church has introduced ambiguity into this or they are wrong, as evidenced from both scripture and earlier church documents.

The section on the Old Covenant included the bit on Noah, remember?

I looked for a specific definition of the Old Covenant in the CCC, but couldn’t find one. It seems to refer to at least Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t think you have read my posts.

Here is some scripture to aid in your understanding:
Hebrews 7:18-19: On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law brought nothing to perfection; on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

So, ripped from context, this seems to say the Ten Commandments are gone.

Hebrews 8:7-8: For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one. But he finds fault with them and says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

See next.

Gal 3:10-11: For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.”

See next.

**
2Cor 3:14-16: Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this
present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old
covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed.**

See next.

God never intended the old covenant to be perfect and planned on replacing it with the new and better covenant.

BTW, this has nothing to do with Calvinism and any discussion of such a topic will only completely throw this thread off track.

If you want to discuss predestination, start another thread.

Thanks for posting/reposting these references, which I think are the strongest possible case for your position.

The discussion of predestination was an attempt to help you see something on your own terms. I am not a Calvinist; they are not mine.

 

[Teflon93]

Hebrews 7
1For this (A)Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the (B)Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.

3Without father, without mother, (C)without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like (D)the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

4Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the (E)patriarch, (F)gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

5And those indeed of (G)the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham.

6But the one (H)whose genealogy is not traced from them (I)collected a tenth from Abraham and (J)blessed the one who (K)had the promises.

7But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

8In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, (L)of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.

9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,

10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

11(M)Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it (N)the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise (O)according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

13For (P)the one concerning whom (Q)these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord was (R)descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

16who has become such not on the basis of a law of (S)physical requirement, but according to the power of (T)an indestructible life.

17For it is attested of Him,
“(U)YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment (V)because of its weakness and uselessness

19(for (W)the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better (X)hope, through which we (Y)draw near to God.

20And inasmuch as it was not without an oath

21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“(Z)THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND (AA)WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST (AB)FOREVER’”);

22so much the more also Jesus has become the (AC)guarantee of (AD)a better covenant.

23The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing,

24but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues (AE)forever, holds His priesthood permanently.

25Therefore He is able also to (AF)save forever those who (AG)draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to (AH)make intercession for them.

26For it was fitting for us to have such a (AI)high priest, (AJ)holy, (AK)innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and (AL)exalted above the heavens;

27who does not need daily, like those high priests, to (AM)offer up sacrifices, (AN)first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did (AO)once for all when He (AP)offered up Himself.

28For the Law appoints men as high priests (AQ)who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints (AR)a Son, (AS)made perfect forever.

So in context, Paul here is arguing that Christ is a sort of new High Priest, a perfect High Priest in fact.

But since the priests of Melchizidek are priests forever, does this change in High Priest mean they are no longer priests? Did Christ’s judgment of the Sanhedrin extend to all Jews?

 

[Teflon93]

Hebrews 8
1Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a (A)high priest, who has taken His seat at (B)the right hand of the throne of the (C)Majesty in the heavens,
2a (D)minister in the sanctuary and in the (E)true tabernacle, which the Lord (F)pitched, not man.

3For every (G)high priest is appointed (H)to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.

4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who (I)offer the gifts according to the Law;

5who serve (J)a copy and (K)shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was (L)warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “(M)SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.”

6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the (N)mediator of (O)a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

A New Covenant
7For (P)if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8For finding fault with them, He says,
“(Q)BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT (R)A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9(S)NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10”(T)FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM (U)ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11"(V)AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’
FOR (W)ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12"(X)FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
(Y)AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE."

13When He said, “(Z)A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete (AA)But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Here Paul is referring to the sacraments of the Church, which replaced much of the old Law. Are those who do not fully avail themselves of the sacraments which mark the New Covenant damned? What of those who DO honor the terms of the Old Covenant, in spirit as in letter?

 

[Teflon93]

Galatians 3
Faith Brings Righteousness

1You foolish (A)Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ (B)was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by (C)hearing with faith?

3Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

4Did you suffer so many things in vain–(D)if indeed it was in vain?

5So then, does He who (E)provides you with the Spirit and (F)works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by (G)hearing with faith?

6Even so (H)Abraham (I)BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

7Therefore, be sure that (J)it is those who are of faith who are (K)sons of Abraham.

8The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “(L)ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”

9So then (M)those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

10For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “(N)CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

11Now that (O)no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “(P)THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

12However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “(Q)HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”

13Christ (R)redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “(S)CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON (T)A TREE”–

14in order that (U)in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we (V)would receive (W)the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Intent of the Law
15(X)Brethren, (Y)I speak in terms of human relations: (Z)even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it.
16Now the promises were spoken (AA)to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “(AB)And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came (AC)four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.

18For (AD)if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but (AE)God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

19(AF)Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been (AG)ordained through angels (AH)by the agency of a mediator, until (AI)the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

20Now (AJ)a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.

21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? (AK)May it never be! For (AL)if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.

22But the Scripture has (AM)shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, (AN)being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

24Therefore the Law has become our (AO)tutor to lead us to Christ, so that (AP)we may be justified by faith.

25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a (AQ)tutor.

26For you are all (AR)sons of God through faith in (AS)Christ Jesus.

27For all of you who were (AT)baptized into Christ have (AU)clothed yourselves with Christ.

28(AV)There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for (AW)you are all one in (AX)Christ Jesus.

29And if (AY)you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to (AZ)promise.

Notice the sense of what Paul says when he refers to the Law as a curse—compare this to the prior Hebrews passage where he talks about the New Covenant as made on “better promises” [better terms]----he’s not saying the Law was cursed by God, but that it became a yoke for Man! He’s chastizing the Galatians for trying to place a yoke on their brothers.

So what of those who willingly bear up under the yoke? What of the righteous Jews with veiled eyes who cannot comprehend the freedom Christ offers them, not through hypocritical lust for power, as the Pharisees and Sanhedrin, but from an earnest desire to do the work of the Lord as their fathers did?

 

[Teflon93]

2 Corinthians 3
Ministers of a New Covenant
1Are we beginning to (A)commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some, (B)letters of commendation to you or from you?
2(C)You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;

3being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, (D)cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of (E)the living God, not on (F)tablets of stone but on (G)tablets of (H)human hearts.

4Such (I)confidence we have through Christ toward God.

5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but (J)our adequacy is from God,

6who also made us adequate as (K)servants of a (L)new covenant, **not of (M)the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but (N)the Spirit gives life. **

7But if the (O)ministry of death, (P)in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, (Q)so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,

8how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?

9For if (R)the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the (S)ministry of righteousness abound in glory.

10For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it.

11For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

12(T)Therefore having such a hope, (U)we use great boldness in our speech,

13and are not like Moses, (V)who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.

14But their minds were (W)hardened; for until this very day at the (X)reading of (Y)the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

15But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;

16(Z)but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where (AA)the Spirit of the Lord is, (AB)there is liberty.

18But we all, with unveiled face, (AC)beholding as in a mirror the (AD)glory of the Lord, are being (AE)transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from (AF)the Lord, the Spirit.

Is Paul here gloating? Is he marking the family and friends of new Christians who refuse to emerge from their cells opened with Christ’s key?

Not hardly—he’s giving thanks that Christians have a covenant built on the spirit, not just the letter of the Law.

But what of those still veiled who obey the spirit of the Law as well?

Christ indicated they would one day join us, didn’t he?

I certainly hope and pray that our Jewish brothers and sisters see the light of Christ today. If that is not possible, then by God let the righteous among them see it tomorrow. Failing that, may God have mercy upon them and reunite us with them on the other side of the Narrow Gate.

 

[sandusky]

If God destroys the earth by fire tomorrow, is that going against what He said He would not do in Genesis 8:21-22? Yes or no.

No; as he destroyed the earth by a flood, and not by fire; as God made clear, and specified in the Noahic covenant.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Where precisely have I been shown to be wrong?
Well, let me post it for you:

So I’m wrong about this how?

You are wrong, because what you assert Gen 8:20ff says, it does not say; God said that He would never again destroy the world, “as I have done,” IOW, by a flood; thus He goes on and makes a covenant with Noah, specifically concerning a flood as the means by which He would never again destroy the world. What’s the difficulty?

Teflon93:

But your inability to argue requires a claim that what you cannot refute is emotional, and I won’t begrudge you that crutch.

I am perfectly able to argue; you, however, are not able to admit that you are wrong, even when you have been shown repeatedly that you are wrong (see my immediately preceding post).

Teflon93:

Isn’t that the whole point of this discussion? I’m simply noting that Christ said he was doing no such thing, which----ta da!—is probably why the Church says the Old Covenant has not been revoked. Christ and God are one, you know.

Not the part that I’ve read.

The abrogation of the Old Covenant by Christ has to do with the works, ritual, and sacrificial system which were peculiar to the Jews (and are now peculiar to the Catholic).

The moral law—the 10 commandments—are not peculiar to the Jews, but are binding on Jew and Gentile alike; and have always been so.

Teflon93:

Jews believe in God, but not Christ. Righteous Jews obey God, and, as Christ showed in his various discussions of salvation, that ain’t chicken feed.

I beg to differ; righteous Jews do not obey God; it is imperative for everyone to be saved, and that specifically through faith in Christ. John 3:36 crystallizes that:**John 3:36

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”**That red word, above, is translated from the Gk apitheō, and it means “to refuse to believe.”

The wrath of God abides upon anyone who apitheōs, and He will not see life.

Teflon93:

So if God and Christ are one (they are), and if God keeps His promises (He does), then might not righteous Jews be saved as well?

Apart from Christ, there is no such thing as a righteous human being (cf Rom 3:10ff); you either believe that, and have a correct biblical anthropology, or you deny that, and put yourself in error.

Teflon93:

Here’s the historical trouble for you—what happened to a righteous Jew in Antioch who died the day after the Resurrection?

If His faith was in Christ, He is saved; if it is not, he is not.

Teflon93:

Here’s the Scriptural trouble for you—how was it possible for Moses and Elijah to be present at the Transfiguration?

I fail to see how that is troublesome for me.

Teflon93:

So you’ll need to define your terms “path to salvation” and “through Christ” to bring them to bear here.

Wake up, T93; that’s the Gospel.

Teflon93:

Moreover, “through Christ” was formulated as “through the Body of Christ”—i.e., the Church, for much of history.

And what was it for the rest of history?

Teflon93:

So given that you’re not Catholic, you might want to avoid an uncharitable view of what “through Christ” precisely means.

Spare me the “uncharitable whine,” T93; if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Teflon93:

You don’t mean to imply that God cannot save anyone He chooses to, do you?

No; in fact, as a Calvinist, I assert that God only saves those whom He chooses to save.

Teflon93:

If God didn’t reveal His thinking on the matter in Genesis 8, how would Moses know it to include it in Scripture?

We must consider ALL of Scripture, not just cherrypick.

And more importantly, we must understand grammar so that we can understand scripture,
and understand what "as I have done,” in relationship to the means of destruction, means.

Teflon93:

So God’s introduction to the Noahdic Covenant is rather important, you know, if inconvenient for the Fundamentalist for whatever reason.

Hey, it’s you, the Catholic, who are spinning what’s stated in the passage, not me.

Teflon93:

Not necessarily. What happens to the righteous Jew who died the day after the Resurrection? This is where invincible ignorance comes into play. And per Christ’s words, the veil over the Jews’ eyes is indeed invincible ignorance.

There is no such thing as invincible ignorance; it falsely assumes that God is unable to get the message of the Gospel to those whom He intends to save.

 

[bobzills]

There is no such thing as invincible ignorance; …

That is hard to believe. Otherwise, why are there Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Shintoists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others?

 

[sandusky]

That is hard to believe. Otherwise, why are there Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Shintoists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others?

Why were there Horites, Amorites, Moabites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Edomites, Temanites, Midianites, Ishmaelites, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, and others?

Invincible ignorance assumes that God is incapable of getting the message of the Gospel to those whom He intends to save.

 

[Teflon93]

You are wrong, because what you assert Gen 8:20ff says, it does not say; God said that He would never again destroy the world, “as I have done,” IOW, by a flood; thus He goes on and makes a covenant with Noah, specifically concerning a flood as the means by which He would never again destroy the world. What’s the difficulty?

I quoted it; you did not. I will quote it again because you teeter on the edge of dishonesty with the above:

**20: And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and **the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. **22: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. **

But feel free to argue with God.

I am perfectly able to argue; you, however, are not able to admit that you are wrong, even when you have been shown repeatedly that you are wrong (see my immediately preceding post).

Oh, nonsense. Why don’t you post, here and now, instances where you’ve said “I am wrong.” I will do the same next post, so we may add dishonesty to your usual lack of charity and manners.

Not the part that I’ve read.

The abrogation of the Old Covenant by Christ has to do with the works, ritual, and sacrificial system which were peculiar to the Jews (and are now peculiar to the Catholic).

The moral law—the 10 commandments—are not peculiar to the Jews, but are binding on Jew and Gentile alike; and have always been so.

Evidence?

I beg to differ; righteous Jews do not obey God; it is imperative for everyone to be saved, and that specifically through faith in Christ. John 3:36 crystallizes that:John 3:36

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”That red word, above, is translated from the Gk apitheō, and it means “to refuse to believe.”

The wrath of God abides upon anyone who apitheōs, and He will not see life.

Apart from Christ, there is no such thing as a righteous human being (cf Rom 3:10ff); you either believe that, and have a correct biblical anthropology, or you deny that, and put yourself in error.

As noted above, you can now explain how Moses and Elijah were at the Transfiguration.

If His faith was in Christ, He is saved; if it is not, he is not.

I fail to see how that is troublesome for me.

Wake up, T93; that’s the Gospel.

I’ll go toe-to-toe with you any day of the week on the Gospel. And I won’t play Bible Bingo as you do, starting with your belief and cherrypicking verses to muster support for it.

And what was it for the rest of history?

Spare me the “uncharitable whine,” T93; if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Please—you can’t address Matthew 19, can’t address any other argument made in this thread. Perhaps it’s because you’re predestined to fail.

No; in fact, as a Calvinist, I assert that God only saves those whom He chooses to save.

Wow, we’ve gotten you to disagree with Paul, who said that God desires all men be saved. But all men apparently meant “those who follow Jean Calvin 1,500 years after the Apostolic Age,” right?

And more importantly, we must understand grammar so that we can understand scripture,
and understand what "as I have done,” in relationship to the means of destruction, means.

Good thing Darby came along in the 19th century to provide you with such clarity on the “God the used car salesman” front. Must preserve rapture theology at all costs, eh?

Hey, it’s you, the Catholic, who are spinning what’s stated in the passage, not me.

No spinning here. You simply cherrypick passages you like and ignore ones you don’t like. So Genesis 8 doesn’t count, the “good stuff” is Genesis 9.

There is no such thing as invincible ignorance; it falsely assumes that God is unable to get the message of the Gospel to those whom He intends to save.

Invincible ignorance is what protects you given your rejection of the Church of Christ. You ought to appreciate that it does.

 

[Teflon93]

Why were there Horites, Amorites, Moabites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Edomites, Temanites, Midianites, Ishmaelites, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, and others?

Invincible ignorance assumes that God is incapable of getting the message of the Gospel to those whom He intends to save.

No, invincible ignorance recognizes that the nature of salvation history dooms whole generations of human beings to the pit of hell.

It is the Calvinist who tries to bind God. God saves whom He will; He saved the thief on the Cross who heard not a word of the Gospel.

He saved Moses and Elijah, who heard not a word of the Gospel.

But keep right on stuffing God in a box for love of Jean Calvin.

 

[Teflon93]

If God destroys the earth by fire tomorrow, is that going against what He said He would not do in Genesis 8:21-22? Yes or no.

No; as he destroyed the earth by a flood, and not by fire; as God made clear, and specified in the Noahic covenant.

So why promise Noah at all?

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

I quoted it; you did not. I will quote it again because you teeter on the edge of dishonesty with the above:

20: And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21: And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

But feel free to argue with God.

It must be that I’m dishonest, after all, you can’t be—you’re Catholic. Similies

Teflon93:

Oh, nonsense. Why don’t you post, here and now, instances where you’ve said “I am wrong.” I will do the same next post, so we may add dishonesty to your usual lack of charity and manners.

Admit it.

Teflon93:

Evidence?

God never punished the nations surrounding Israel for failing to keep the sacrificial, and ritual laws, but He did punish them for breaking the moral laws (Lev 18):**Leviticus 18:24-25

‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.**

Teflon93:

As noted above, you can now explain how Moses and Elijah were at the Transfiguration.

I’m not sure what you are asking—God was gracious toward them, and they believed God; salvation has been for eternity by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

Teflon93:

I’ll go toe-to-toe with you any day of the week on the Gospel. And I won’t play Bible Bingo as you do, starting with your belief and cherrypicking verses to muster support for it.

Teflon93:

Please—you can’t address Matthew 19, can’t address any other argument made in this thread. Perhaps it’s because you’re predestined to fail.

Address what with Mt 19?

Teflon93:

Wow, we’ve gotten you to disagree with Paul, who said that God desires all men be saved. But all men apparently meant “those who follow Jean Calvin 1,500 years after the Apostolic Age,” right?

Keep repeating, and maybe it will come true. Wow!! !!!

Teflon93:

Good thing Darby came along in the 19th century to provide you with such clarity on the “God the used car salesman” front. Must preserve rapture theology at all costs, eh?

Is this how you go “toe-to-toe?” Answer a statement with an answer that has nothing to do with the statement? Wow!!!

Teflon93:

No spinning here. You simply cherrypick passages you like and ignore ones you don’t like. So Genesis 8 doesn’t count, the “good stuff” is Genesis 9.

Similies

Teflon93:

It is the Calvinist who tries to bind God. GOD SAVES WHOM HE WILL; He saved the thief on the Cross who heard not a word of the Gospel.

He saved Moses and Elijah, who heard not a word of the Gospel.

But keep right on stuffing God in a box for love of Jean Calvin.

How pathetically confused you are. The Calvinist asserts that God only saves those whom He chooses to save—which seems to be what you are saying.