Issues with Modified Covenant Theology

[bgamall]

"The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ" Brandon, I disagree with your statement here because the gospel worked in the same way in the Old Testament just like the New. Therefore, the elect have never been driven to Christ by the Law, but rather by the gospel that was revealed in the law, and then in the NC the gospel alone for the Gentiles. So again, just the gospel is the power of God, and has always been.

BTW, I believe that your Modified covenant theology is closer to modified New Covenant theology im most ways.

Again, as you see at my site Brandon, people really must reject the basic errors of Covenant Theology, like law preaching, eternal generation of the Son, same covenant different administrations, in order to stand outside the camp with the believers. I do think that most people hang onto at least a part of Covenant Theology in those essential errors, even if they claim to be New Covenant theologians. Most of the issues that you have formulated in your Modified Covenant theology are maybe not such crucial issues. Gary

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

"The OC law was given to drive the elect to Christ" Brandon, I disagree with your statement here because the gospel worked in the same way in the Old Testament just like the New. Therefore, the elect have never been driven to Christ by the Law, but rather by the gospel that was revealed in the law, and then in the NC the gospel alone for the Gentiles. So again, just the gospel is the power of God, and has always been.

Gal 3:1-29, (KJV)

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 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. 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. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

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

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Whether or not we disagree isn't the issue, rather, what does the Word of God state?

In Him,

Scott.

[bgamall]

The law was a schoolmaster to the Old Covenant saints, teaching them that Christ was true according to the types and shadows revealed to them. This scripture is one of the most misunderstood scriptures there is. Your interpretation totally annuls Paul saying he was determined to know nothing but the gospel to the Gentiles. How could that be if they needed a "schoolmaster" according to your definition? Gary

Calvin and other Augustinians used a false internal introspection to count as a "law conviction". They used the scripture, "examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith" and applied it to UNBELIEVERS, when clearly, Paul applied it to believers. The conviction of the Spirit is quick, it is a cutting of the spiritual nature, and it is completely effective, as we see in Acts chapter 2. We don't see a long drawn out false introspection with the results of the gospel! That is why I view Covenant Theology as being no better than dispensationalism. It is my view that these will be avoided ultimately, by the elect.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

The law was a schoolmaster to the Old Covenant saints,

For the Old Testament "Saints"? That's strange, your statement seemingly contradicts that Paul wrote to Timmy in his first letter...

Tim 1:9-10, (KJV) "...Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for man slayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;..."

Your interpretation totally annuls Paul saying he was determined to know nothing but the gospel to the Gentiles.

Hmmmmm... Perhaps you should give this passage another reading. Re-examine your understanding of what's being said by Paul according to the context of the situation.

Paul's purpose of not wanting to bring any more information to the table other than the gospel itself, in it's simplicity, was done, as not to persuade the body in Corinth with big fancy words and abstract philosophical reasoning, or, to "entice them" as it were. Rather, that their faith "should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God".

(Maybe the power of God to those who are being saved?? Just a quick thought)

1 Cor 2:1-5, (KJV) "... And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Calvin and other Augustinians used...

Perhaps... I wouldn't know. I rarely read anything but the bible. So, as far as the linage of churchianity goes, I'm as clueless as they come after the end of Acts. I don't even know what makes someone an "Augustinian", and I'm not familiar with Calvin other than brief historical trivia and snippets of his writings.

With all due respect, you're dropping names with the wrong person here. It's better if we just stick to the bible.

They used the scripture, "examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith" and applied it to UNBELIEVERS, when clearly, Paul applied it to believers.

I wouldn't doubt they did that. But I do doubt Paul applied it to believers only. It would make more sense that Paul applied it to the visible local assembly, seeing how both regenerate and unregenerate would have been present.

But, you are completely m,missing the point as to why Paul was telling the Corinthians to examine themselves. He did so because they were questioning his Apostleship and he was turning the tables on them. Go ahead and read the context of the passages.

2 Cor 13:3-6, (KJV) ",.. Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you. For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God toward you. Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.

Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates."

Furthermore, I would like to point out that instead of Paul dumping on them for their false accusations, he redirected their attention to a more important matter at hand - Christ in them.

The conviction of the Spirit is quick, it is a cutting of the spiritual nature, and it is completely effective,

It can be, it can also take years...

If conviction of the Spirit happens oh so quick, then Paul wouldn't of gone through the effort of making his own pen, his own paper, his own ink, writing the epistle, have it sent by way of something slower of the pony express all for the purpose of admonishing the Corinthians.

I think you get the idea.

That is why I view Covenant Theology as being no better than dispensationalism. It is my view that these will be avoided ultimately, by the elect.

Can't help you here. I don't even know the difference between to the two.

Time for me to go.

BTW, my name isn't Gary. It's Scott. Nice to meet you.

In Him,

Me (Scott)

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by bgamall
That is why I view Covenant Theology as being no better than dispensationalism. It is my view that these will be avoided ultimately, by the elect.

Can't help you here. I don't even know the difference between to the two.
Time for me to go.
BTW, my name isn't Gary. It's Scott. Nice to meet you.

In Him,

Me (Scott)

Hi bmall. I kind of agree with you and in a way I hope you are right on them being "avoided" unless it is Scriptural.

I myself see only 2 convenants. One before the Cross and Ascension of our Dear Lord Jesus, and the one after the Cross and Ascension.
Basically OC Adam/flesh/Law/Death and NC Adam/spirit/Jesus/Life. Looks like only 2 types of men/covenants according to Paul. How can that be confusing? Blessings.

1 corin 15: 45 And so it is written, "Thefirst man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man [was] of the earth, [made] of dust; the second Man [is] the Lord from heaven.

gala 4:23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the Two Covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/fa...ant_theol.html
In truth, there is only one correct theological view of the Covenant, and that is the 'biblical' view. That is to say, the view of covenant theology as defined by the Bible. However, typically man chooses to make things more complicated and confusing than they should be, and so accordingly, labels are required to separate the three basic schools of thought. The theology of the Covenant might be defined in one way by one group, and in another way by another group. But in general, the three major views fit somewhere into the systems known as 'Dispensational theology,' 'Covenant theology,' and 'New Covenant Theology.'

[bgamall]

Hello In Christ Always. Go to my website and click the dispensationalsim link. Their are parallels between CT and D that are elemental and not according to your posts in Galatians which are so important. To postpone the establishment of the law or of a holy physical nation which has been done away with is beyond the scriptures. Therefore, the most accurate view is the New Covenant Theology view, understanding that there are some difficult mysteries that Brandon has brought out that may not have easy resolutions and should not be points of division. In my view, the points of division relate to law preaching, same covenant diff. administrations, and the promotion of eternal generation.

Mr ugly. I am not going to argue with you. You have made your case and I have made mine. That Paul wanted to know the gospel only to the Gentiles has only one rational explanation, mine. You jump through hula hoops to make your case. But you probably already know that.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Mr ugly. I am not going to argue with you. You have made your case and I have made mine. That Paul wanted to know the gospel only to the Gentiles has only one rational explanation, mine. You jump through hula hoops to make your case. But you probably already know that.

I'm not here to argue either, but as long as it is within my ability to do so, I will not let somone handle God's Word in a fashion that is misleading to the others who visit this site. If I lack the ability to correct those who need to be corrected, then there are a host of others here who can and will.

Now regarding the topic at hand:

You need to re-read the passage again and place what Paul is saying within the context of the intent of his writing. If you examine your earlier post HONESTLY, you will find you have failed to explain anything rationally, but instead have handled the text in a manner that leaves much to be desired.

I personally don't see how came to the conclusion you did because you simply made a vague statement with nothing to back it up. It makes no sense what-so-ever. As well, it appears you are isolating key words out of one verse, from an enitre body of writing, as a proof for your doctrinal position on the topic. Additionally, you've accused me of "jumping through hoops" as a means to justify your position, and negate mine, without any substantial evidence for your claims. It's completely absurd.

If you can support your position with sound biblical interpretation then by all means, I would enjoy reading it, and perhaps learning something new. If you can't, then please refrain from taking cheap-shots as a cover-up for your ignorance.

Thanks,

Scott.

[bgamall]

I am sorry to hear MR Cow, that you are thinking I am misusing scripture. However, we shall see on the last Day you know, who understands the gospel of Christ and who doesn't. I say the Reformers didn't. You say they did. We will see....

It is obvious from context that Paul was speaking to the Galatians of the inferiority of the law to the gospel. Peter did not use a schoolmaster and ask for introspection from the Jews in Acts Ch 2. The gospel is the power of God, the law is weak, ie with no power. It cannot save, and cannot convict. That is the gospel. If it hasn't happened to you Scott I will pray for you. It hasn't happened to many. That is for sure. It didn't happen to the reformers. They were augustinians. They sought to reform an apostate religion and attempted to do so by following the defender of Sacralism, Augustine!

[harald]

It might interest some one that in the Galatians passage (3:23) Paul wrote "law", not "the law". The reprobate KJV translators and many other versions' translators have unwarrantedly added an article "the", and I don't think many have been honest even so as to put it in italics. In v. 24 NOMOS has the article, but, this is the article of previous reference. "the law" in v. 24 does not mean "the ten commandments". Nor does it likely mean "the ceremonial law". The word "schoolmaster" (KJV) not so well translates the Greek paidagôgos, lit. a child leader, one who escorts a child (to school). It most likely does not refer to the Decalogue or the ceremonial law, because be mindful of who Paul writes to. He writes to the gentiles of Galatian assemblies in the Christ. The Mosaic Law had not to them been a "schoolmaster", nor yet a child's escort. How wickedly indeed have not they dealt with God's word who have injected "the law" into each and every context where Paul simply wrote "law", without the article. Some even evilly capitalizing (3:24) - "the Law" (Geneva, LITV, MKJV, ALT, KJV 1611). Also the Reformers were legalists indeed.

Harald

[lionovjudah]

I am sorry to hear MR Cow, that you are thinking I am misusing scripture. However, we shall see on the last Day you know, who understands the gospel of Christ and who doesn't. I say the Reformers didn't. You say they did. We will see....

It is obvious from context that Paul was speaking to the Galatians of the inferiority of the law to the gospel. Peter did not use a schoolmaster and ask for introspection from the Jews in Acts Ch 2. The gospel is the power of God, the law is weak, ie with no power. It cannot save, and cannot convict. That is the gospel. If it hasn't happened to you Scott I will pray for you. It hasn't happened to many. That is for sure. It didn't happen to the reformers. They were augustinians. They sought to reform an apostate religion and attempted to do so by following the defender of Sacralism, Augustine!

So does this mean that only John Zens and company will be present with the Lord on the last day? You sound like John Agricola!!!!!!!!!!

[bgamall]

Hi, I am not going to speak for Jon Zens. I believe that he has an accurate view of scripture as any man alive. But you will have to ask him if he wants to stick his neck out like I do. In fact I encourage you to ask him.

I am not here to say who is going to be saved and who is not. I am saying that men who have lived and died and have taken to their graves certain theologies, certain gospels, are not reflecting the gospel of Christ in crucial matters. If these guys were convicted by the law as they said they were, and if they kept a sabbath, and if they believed in the church state (Even Spurgeon believed that the Puritans should have prevailed) then how are they any different from the Bahnsen camp? And what do they know about the gospel? They know nothing about the gospel.

If a person believes that his conviction was law guilt about adultery, or false business practice, or not keeping a sabbath day or some other lesser sin, then his conviction is for nothing. That man is still in his sins. The Spirit convicts of unbelief. It is the cutting of Acts chapter two that saves, and that through the gospel. If a man has not been cut by the gospel, he cannot be in the kingdom of God. Period.

Do you think I am happy when I see few that believe? For God's sake man, I am human. I cannot be happy with this. Was Paul happy when he saw that his countrymen were going to eternally perish? Was Jesus happy when He said to Israel that He had reached out to them and they didn't listen? Who of the elect is happy that people perish because of unbelief, and miss out on the blessings of the almighty God?

Do you think I like coming to forums where people dispute the truth? I prefer peace. I do not have an intellectual desire to debate. I have a desire to tell the truth. And that is all.

BTW John Agricola debated Melanthon? Over what. Was he right? I subscribe the the 1646 London confession because the rest are a waste of time.

[lionovjudah]

Hi, I am not going to speak for Jon Zens. I believe that he has an accurate view of scripture as any man alive. But you will have to ask him if he wants to stick his neck out like I do. In fact I encourage you to ask him.

I am not here to say who is going to be saved and who is not. I am saying that men who have lived and died and have taken to their graves certain theologies, certain gospels, are not reflecting the gospel of Christ in crucial matters. If these guys were convicted by the law as they said they were, and if they kept a sabbath, and if they believed in the church state (Even Spurgeon believed that the Puritans should have prevailed) then how are they any different from the Bahnsen camp? And what do they know about the gospel? They know nothing about the gospel.

If a person believes that his conviction was law guilt about adultery, or false business practice, or not keeping a sabbath day or some other lesser sin, then his conviction is for nothing. That man is still in his sins. The Spirit convicts of unbelief. It is the cutting of Acts chapter two that saves, and that through the gospel. If a man has not been cut by the gospel, he cannot be in the kingdom of God. Period.

Do you think I am happy when I see few that believe? For God's sake man, I am human. I cannot be happy with this. Was Paul happy when he saw that his countrymen were going to eternally perish? Was Jesus happy when He said to Israel that He had reached out to them and they didn't listen? Who of the elect is happy that people perish because of unbelief, and miss out on the blessings of the almighty God?

Do you think I like coming to forums where people dispute the truth? I prefer peace. I do not have an intellectual desire to debate. I have a desire to tell the truth. And that is all.

Your desires are of no concern to me "man" your implications of the history of the church, the pillar of truth, to be in COMPLETE error is a concern though.

To say these men do not know the Gospel, because of not being a card carrying member of the NCT camp is a very very big broad brush.

But that is ok, what you are doing is an example throught history of attempting to balance to see saw. The puritans over emphasised the Law, and now the John Agricolas of today have put 2000 tons of NCT on the other side.

Without realizing it, I hope, you have fenced, and monopolised heavan from a man made concoction of partial truths magnified as Holy inspired writ.

Plus there are many statements on whom the kingdom belongs to from Christ himself, not NCT proponents. I will stick with Christ myself. Unless there is a parable that i cannot find that says "The kingdom of God, is likened unto a NCT theologian" Who knows the truth.... I will take what you say with a grain of salt for my steak!!!!!!

I will most certainly agree that Law Preaching is overemphasized in some arenas, but do not throw the baby out with the mud.


Joe

[bgamall]

Joe you can have the last word. However, note that others may want to contribute to this thread and I will speak to them.

[bgamall]

I do have one thing to say though, Joe. If a large part of NCT theology insists on law preaching, then they will meet with the same end as the reformers. I am speaking of Volker, Reisinger, WR Downing and followers.

And BTW Joe, it is not a balancing act to balance legalism with the truth. That would be like Paul balancing the Galatians with the Circumcision. Check out my website if you get time.

[lionovjudah]

I do have one thing to say though, Joe. If a large part of NCT theology insists on law preaching, then they will meet with the same end as the reformers. I am speaking of Volker, Reisinger, WR Downing and followers.

And BTW Joe, it is not a balancing act to balance legalism with the truth. That would be like Paul balancing the Galatians with the Circumcision. Check out my website if you get time.

BG it is though. Because one does not subscribe to hyper NCT, does nto keep them from heavans door. I like the works of the men you mentioned. The Law has its place for the unbeliever as well as the believer.

Read the debate between Luther and Agricola please. You will see what I am saying.

THis theory is also convered in the Antinomian thread recently here. This is nothing new bg. It has been around since the beginning. Even the OT jews had no need for Gods Law in their own mind. They made it a nose of wax, forming into some :thing" that was NEVER intended. So it is a balance BG. And not between legalism and the truth, between legalism and antinomianism. Those are the extremes. And so our disagreement is rehashing of the same ole same ole.

Scott has posted enough from the writ, where as you have not. You have only repeated the thoughts of modern day Agricolas. Now I will say, I am not totally against what you say. I do agree Law preaching can and is abused. But if Paul said "All Scripture is God inspired....and a benefit" I believe he was speaking of the whole writ. The error is made when some espouse that the Law points us to Christ, then Christ(Gospel) points us back to the Law. That is erroneous.

But to deny ANY use of the Law is also a mistake.

As an aside, please do not become the Cherub guarding the tree of life please. Please do not imply eternal death of former saints, or anyone for that matter in regards to this topic. Because you put that in your quotes, I automatically react with animosoity, and I do not enjoy this bickering. Just state you points, leave out the self appointed holder of truth, leave out the patronizing crap. IT fits you like a cheap suit. You are not concerned for the souls of people. You have no true care for those who "YOU" believe are "wrong." I know because I have been their. I said I cared, but I did not. I have yet to read one proponent of NCT condemn people to eternal fire as you do.


When God gives orders and tells us what will happen if we fail to obey those orders perfectly, that is in the category of what the reformers, following the biblical text, called law. When God promises freely, providing for us because of Christ's righteousness the status he demands of us, this is in the category of gospel. It is good news from start to finish. The Bible includes both, and the reformers were agreed that the Scriptures taught clearly that the law, whether Old or New Testament commands, was not eliminated for the believer (those from a Dispensational background may notice a difference here). Nevertheless, they insisted that nothing in this category of law could be a means of justification or acceptance before a holy God ... The law comes, not to reform the sinner nor to show him or her the "narrow way" to life, but to crush the sinner's hopes of escaping God's wrath through personal effort or even cooperation. All of our righteousness must come from someone else-someone who has fulfilled the law's demands. Only after we have been stripped of our "filthy rags" of righteousness (Isa. 64:6)- our fig leaves through which we try in vain to hide our guilt and shame-can we be clothed with Christ's righteousness. First comes the law to proclaim judgment and death, then the gospel to proclaim justification and life. One of the clearest presentations of this motif is found in Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. In the sixteenth century, the issue of law and grace was more clearly dealt with than at almost any other time since the apostles.
- Modern Reformation (May/June 2003: "Good News: The Gospel for Christians")

Jesus and the Adultrous woman in John 8 is a great example of a preaching model.

The Law condmens her, Christ justifies her, does not condemn her, then sets her free from the curse by the good news.

You cannot preach the Law without the remedy of Christ.

[InChristAlways]

I do have one thing to say though, Joe. If a large part of NCT theology insists on law preaching, then they will meet with the same end as the reformers. I am speaking of Volker, Reisinger, WR Downing and followers.

And BTW Joe, it is not a balancing act to balance legalism with the truth. That would be like Paul balancing the Galatians with the Circumcision. Check out my website if you get time.

In Matt 5, Jesus spoke this to the jews and when those calling themselves jews do come to Jesus, they read this passage and feel they must also follow the Law until all things are fulfilled, and I assume that means "heaven and earth".

The catholic church also appears to promote "judaism/legalism", though I feel more will leave that teaching as they start reading the Bible themselves.

If it wasn't for our dear Brother Paul, we would also have to read this literally and as Paul said, in Jesus there is neither jew, greek or gentile, but the WAY.

Matt 5:17 " Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

BTW bmall, have you ever looked at this messianic site that shows Paul as a "false apostle"? I bring this up because there are christians that practice messianic judaism and I just hope more sites like this don't show up as this will confuse the whole church of Christianity just as Zionist Dispensationalism has, what I call a "Spider Web".

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm Some letters from christians to that site:

I too, thought I was blaspheming God's word because I found Paul to go against many of Yahshua's messages. He seems to preach the EXACT OPPOSITE of what God said regarding the tenants of belief in the one true God, i.e., The Sabbath, circumcision, and unclean foods, to name a few. Too many do not see the obvious; that the evil one has used men to create the mirror opposite of true worship. Too many also do not see the end result of what Christianity will become. Thank you for a truly visionary piece of work.

15

Well thank you to our most magnificent YHVH for leading me to your website. I just had the most awful Sabbath studying some of the "New Testament" because I had been feeling guilty about neglecting it. I enjoy so much studying the Law and the Prophets and feel uncomfortable and uneasy studying Paul. I have never liked him and always avoided his writings. And consequently felt like a "bad christian." Now a Nazarene, following Yehshua and His Torah teaching, and totally alone out here in the remnant, what a relief to find your site. Never again will I let that false apostle ruin my Sabbath. I have always wondered why there were thirteen apostles when scripture clearly says there are twelve. And why would Yehshua painstakingly teach His "taught ones," for three years and then add one on later? Thank you, thank you, thank you for your studies. May our awesome YHVH keep you and yours and continue directing you in the truth.
__________________________________________________ ______

Nice work on the apostle Paul. I found Hyam Maccoby's , The Myth Maker very well done and to the point as well. Paul's arguments in Galatians on "seed and seeds" is terrible and I would have been flunked in seminary for such reasoning! The Christian church may someday have to wake up to the fact that it is Paul who is the culprit in the total confusion in the faith today between Law and Grace, Sabbath-Sunday, Trinity etc...The Christian church started out Jewish , was taken away from Peter , James and John , by Paul andmade in the mold of Gentile Hellenism at the hands of Paul, it seems.

[bgamall]

Well of course, people who really understand Paul realize that he speaks about law and grace in such a way as no legalists could support him. I am surprised he wasn't booted by the Catholics and Protestants a long time ago. Instead, they just turned his words around, like schoolmaster in Galatians, and making Romans 7 into a repentance when it really was just an explanation of what the law did to him, making him want to sin more, rather than making him humbled or convicted, as the legalists teach.

[bgamall]

"I have yet to read one proponent of NCT condemn people to eternal fire as you do."

That is because I am different Joe. I am glad you noticed. I never said I was with them. If you go to my website you will see why.

Unfortunately it also appears I am being defended by a full preterist. I am not one.

Joe you also say:"But to deny ANY use of the Law is also a mistake." I don't deny a use of the law. But it was not the law that convicted the adulterous, or the woman by the well. It is the revelation of Christ as prophet that brought belief. The law is useful in that it shows Christ contained in the law. He is the fulfillment of the types and shadows. But if you teach that the law humbles, convicts, or does any such thing to move people closer to the kingdom of God, you deny Acts ch 2, and you deny the gospel. And I don't care what Reisinger or any of the others teach. It is my view, and the view of the 1646 London Confession of faith that the gospel is denied when the law is preached as a conviction tool.

Joe, this is a quote from my website:

While John Owen believed that the preaching of the law was necessary in every case to the salvation of the elect, many such as Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, and John Reisinger believed that in many cases is the power of the law necessary to do what the gospel cannot do. But I have rejected this position as well. I believe that Jon Zens has rejected this position as well. However it remains to be seen if Jon will come out and embrace my view that the law preachers are apostate.

I have rejected the mainstream of the so called New Covenant movement that has embraced this so called power of law. Of course, the scripture is clearly on my side: the elect are cut to the heart by the gospel, not by the law. The elect are saved by the conviction of the Spirit because they BELIEVE NOT in the Savior. We are not saved or brought closer to salvation by the guilt generated from violation of law. (Acts 2:36-38, John 16:9, Rom 8:3, Phil 3:2-9)

With regard to Jon Zens, I do not put him in the camp of the law preachers. However, it remains to be seen whether Jon Zens has or will ever see the danger in the position of Spurgeon, ie that the gospel must SOMETIMES be supplemented by conviction of the law. I view Spurgeon's position as being against the true gospel. Indeed, if any of you hear the true gospel and are convicted by the same, you will understand that law is not necessary for salvation at all in all cases! Paul was determined to know nothing but the gospel as he went preaching to the Gentiles. Paul understood the power of the gospel and the weakness of the law. And so it has always been, even in Old Covenant times. (Heb 4:2, Heb Ch 11, Nu 21:9, Isa 7:14 and 9:6, Dan 9:23-27, Hos 6:2, Psalms Chapters 2, 16 and 22, Mt 16:21)

[lionovjudah]

That is because I am different Joe. I am glad you noticed. I never said I was with them. If you go to my website you will see why.

Kinda like saying keebler is different than chipa ahoy. Either way you dunk them, they are chocolate chip cookies BG

But if you teach that the law humbles, convicts, or does any such thing to move people closer to the kingdom of God, you deny Acts ch 2, and you deny the gospel.

When did acts 2 define the whole Gospel? It does not.

And I don't care what Reisinger or any of the others teach. It is my view, and the view of the 1646 London Confession of faith that the gospel is denied when the law is preached as a conviction tool.

Then you and the 25 others will enjoy eternal life BG

But I have rejected this position as well. I believe that Jon Zens has rejected this position as well. However it remains to be seen if Jon will come out and embrace my view that the law preachers are apostate.

You are correct in the emphasised words. I and My. Heavan will be a very very lonely place then

I am glad you can determine who is apostate and damned BG. For me, I do not want this luxury. Argue with the word. Not me. Enjoy the soft wax you have made it.



Joe

[bgamall]

Joe, "many are called few are chosen" are not my words. But I take them very seriously.