Acts 22:16 Paul's salvation

[Doug Brents]

The topic was the thief on the cross - you said that was under the Old Covenant.
So you just ignore Luke 16:16 and say that this is irrelevant to the topic?
"The Law and the prophets were until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached ..."
According to this verse, the New Covenant extends throughout the life of Jesus and starts with John.

"“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John came; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it." You, or your translation, omitted a very important phrase in that verse (see bolded phrase above). This verse is not saying that the Law and Prophets ceased to be relevant when John came. They ceased to be proclaimed (by John and Jesus, the Pharisees and the keepers of the Law continued to proclaim them), and the Gospel of the (coming) Kingdom of God began to be preached by John and then Jesus. This does not say that the Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant began with the birth or teaching of John.

You also ignore that the four gospels are in the New Testament section of your Bible, which includes the story of the thief on the cross - but that too is irrelevant?

The fact that these books are included in the NT section of the Bible is very much irrelevant. They tell the story of the Gospel of Jesus which is part of the New Covenant, but it was all taught while under the Old Covenant. Jesus was born and lived His whole life under the Old Covenant so that He could redeem us from under the Old Covenant. He had to live under it to fulfill it, in order to complete it, so that it could be removed. If He hadn't fulfilled it while living under it, He could not have removed it and given us a New Covenant to replace the Old.

You also brought up the topic that the kingdom of God had not come during Jesus' life - I assume you think it started when He died. So if He was born a King, as the wise men claimed, then is He a King without a Kingdom?

Very much, just as David was a king without a kingdom (because Saul was still king over the kingdom that David was to rule).

And when He started His ministry, Nathanael called Him the King of Israel, whether the Jews recognized it or not. Truly, His kingdom even then was those who were His disciples. He even told Pilate that His kingdom, even though not of this world, was everyone who hears His voice (and follows Him)

But of course, all of that is irrelevant, right?

Jesus' kingdom and the New Covenant are two very different things. Jesus was born King of the whole world, but Satan still rules the world (John 12:31).

The New Covenant is not His Kingdom. It is the promise He made in His blood to rescue those who are His from death and give them His righteousness because He took on their sin and condemnation. Those who receive His grace that is given through the New Covenant are in His Kingdom.

 

[Doug Brents]

Neither the blood nor the water take away sins. No physical object, gesture, ritual or doctrinal confession can do it.
It is God’s grace which does it. It has always been about God’s mercy, which is given for free.
So, any reference to blood or water cleansing sins found in Scripture is metaphorical.

Of course it is metaphorical. But that does not stop it from also being actual. When is the instant that a couple become one in marriage?
Is it when they make the promise to wed when they become engaged? No.
Is it when the bride walks down the isle and meets the groom at the "alter"? No.
Is it when they exchange rings? No.
Is it when they exchange vows? No.
It is when the minister/judge declares, "I now pronounce you husband and wife."

Similarly, there is an instant in time when a person goes from being lost in sin to saved in Christ. When does Scripture say that instant is?
Is it when they hear the Word? No, although that is a required step in the right direction.
Is it when they internally express intellectual assent in the truth of the Gospel? No, although that is a required step in the right direction.
Is it when they repent of sin? No, although that is a step required in the right direction.
Is it when they acknowledge Jesus as their Lord? No, although that is a step required in the right direction.
It is when they are buried in baptism (in water) in imitation of Jesus' burial during which the Holy Spirit cuts their sin from them (Col 2:11-14) and unites them with Jesus death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-7).

Let’s avoid talking about the precious blood of Jesus as if it were an object, a kind of soap or disinfectant.
The blood of Jesus was shed and disappeared 2000 years ago. It does not exist anymore, but as a symbol in our minds of Jesus life, and love to men, and obedience to our Father. It moves us all to seek reconciliation with God, and be born into a new kind of life. This is how Christ’s blood “cleanses” our sins. By inspiring us.

The physical blood of Christ did indeed disappear. But the effect of His Blood has not.
Acts 20:28 says that it is with His blood that He bought (literally redeemed) us from sin.
Col 1:13-20 says that it is with His blood that He rescued us from darkness, reconciled us to Himself, and made peace in all things.
Eph 1:7, Heb 9:14, Heb 9:22, 1 John 1:7 and many others also express the ongoing effect of His blood on us today. It is not just an inspiration to us. It is the power of His blood by which the Holy Spirit removes our sins and unites us to Jesus' resurrection (1 John 1:7, Heb 9:14).

 

[Doug Brents]

No. I assume that God’s default position is forgiveness.
God has always been ready to forgive anyone who comes to Him with a broken contrite heart.
His mercy has always been for free, and in this life on earth.
David expected forgiveness and rebirth in his days. He asked for it (Psalm 51) and he got it.

Certainly God has always been ready to forgive (to a certain point). But He only forgives those who obey Him. Man's default condition is condemnation before God. All men have sinned, and so all men are condemned and deserving of eternal separation from God. Yet God is willing to accept individuals back into fellowship with Him if they willingly choose to serve Him and not themselves. He does not force us, but He does "bribe" us with promises of great eternal reward in Heaven and threaten us with great eternal torment in Hell (both the carrot and the stick).

 

[dwight92070]

Doug, the actual Greek says: "The law and the prophets (were) until John." The word "proclaimed" is NOT in the Greek, not in the KJV, nor in the Strong's Concordance. The word "were" is assumed, and is therefore put in parentheses in the Greek Interlinear.

You said: They tell the story of the Gospel of Jesus which is part of the New Covenant ...
So you agree with me that the four gospels are the New Covenant?

You said: The fact that these books are included in the NT section of the Bible is very much irrelevant.
Huhhh. And here I thought that meant something. Silly me. Come to find out - it's irrelevant.

You said: He had to live under it to fulfill it, in order to complete it,
What verse tells us that? And that He lived His whole life under the Law?

So when two people are married, they make a covenant with each other. No one has to die in order for this covenant to be in force.
But Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant between God and man.

But when a man makes a will or a testament, that will or that testament is not in force until or unless he dies. Hebrews 9:16-17 use the meaning of a testament or a will.

So there appears to be a difference between a New Covenant and a New Testament, however the Greek word is the same for both - diatheke.

There appears to be two aspects of "diatheke". One is as a covenant sealed in the blood of Christ. The other is as a will or testament by which the dying Christ bequeathed to all believers the goods of salvation.

 

[Doug Brents]

Doug, the actual Greek says: "The law and the prophets (were) until John." The word "proclaimed" is NOT in the Greek, not in the KJV, nor in the Strong's Concordance. The word "were" is assumed, and is therefore put in parentheses in the Greek Interlinear.

You said: They tell the story of the Gospel of Jesus which is part of the New Covenant ...
So you agree with me that the four gospels are the New Covenant?

They are part of the New Covenant, but they happened while the people were still subject to the Old Covenant.

You said: The fact that these books are included in the NT section of the Bible is very much irrelevant.
Huhhh. And here I thought that meant something. Silly me. Come to find out - it's irrelevant.

Where man categorizes a book in the Bible is irrelevant, just as the chapter and verse labels and the subheadings that are in some Bibles are irrelevant. These are all man's notes places around the Scriptures to make it easier for us to find what we are looking for. It is not what man does that matters. What matters is what God had to say, and He says that the OC was in effect right up until He died (Matt 5:18). The OC would not pass away until it was fulfilled. When was it fulfilled? When Jesus died!

You said: He had to live under it to fulfill it, in order to complete it,
What verse tells us that? And that He lived His whole life under the Law?

Matt 5:18

So when two people are married, they make a covenant with each other. No one has to die in order for this covenant to be in force.
But Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant between God and man.

But when a man makes a will or a testament, that will or that testament is not in force until or unless he dies. Hebrews 9:16-17 use the meaning of a testament or a will.

So there appears to be a difference between a New Covenant and a New Testament, however the Greek word is the same for both - diatheke.

There appears to be two aspects of "diatheke". One is as a covenant sealed in the blood of Christ. The other is as a will or testament by which the dying Christ bequeathed to all believers the goods of salvation.

The covenant he is talking about here is the last will and testament. And in most cases, the one making the covenant did not die, but sacrificed animals as surrogates. This is what Abraham did when God made the covenant with him (Gen 15).

New Covenant and New Testament are the same, and can be used interchangeably. They are just different English words used in place of the one Greek word. Both mean that they do not go into effect until one dies (or makes a blood sacrifice in place of the death).