The Covenant Context of Salvation

[JoshebB]

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by "covenantal choice".
When a contract / covenant / pact is presented, it is implicit that both parts have to agree and "sign" in some way for the covenant to take place. That's the first "covenantal choice".

That is incorrect and what you just posted contradicts your several of your prior statements.

• A covenant is not the same thing as a contract.
• As has already been uniformly observed by everyone here (including you) and well established in scripture, God did NOT ask anyone before He decided to initiate a covenant. He initiated the covenant without asking anyone.
• After initiating the covenant, God then chose the covenant participant and, again, God did not ask a single one of them if they wanted to be chosen.
• Likewise, after initiating the covenant, and choosing its participant(s), God then called that person and, again, He did not ask any one of them if they wanted to be called.
• After initiating the covenant, and choosing the participant and calling the participant, God then commanded that individual or group and, again, He did so without ever asking if they wanted to be commanded, without ever considering obedience to the covenant command an option, and without ever considering them non-members. He commanded them as covenant members.
• The question pertaining to participation does not occur until after those first five conditions is all already established.

You cannot then say both parts have to agree when the facts in evidence prove otherwise. Furthermore, the "contract" analogy fails because a contract is a negotiation. Each party in a contract asks for and expects each other under the burden of obligation to comply, and each party can levy penalties as stipulated in the contract and agreed upon by both parties. In the covenants God initiates in the Bible the creature does not dictate to the Creator.

Let's clear this up before proceeding.

 

[JoshebB]

Lydia was a God fearing woman who knew nothing about the gospel or soteriology.

and... (what's the point you're attempting to make?)

Which Covenant are you referring to?
Just got here.
Something sounds wrong....

Then let me encourage you to read through the thread so you better understand what has already transpired (so questions already answered, and points already addressed won't be asked again). The op (opening post) specifies which covenant, and the subsequent posts clarify the matter. The covenant we are discussing is the covenant in Christ that saves. Salvation never occurs outside of that covenant relationship.

Are you saying that ALL Covenants are Bilateral?

Read the thread. So far, with each element of every covenant God initiates scriptures reports, and all of the posters agree, the elements discussed so far are NOT bilateral. A little time can be saved by reading the post above this one (Post 221) where the thread has been summarized, and the matter of co-participation has been addressed. Reading through the thread will elaborate on the bullet points in that post.

 

[JoshebB]

Sure do. I've got entire chapters. Ephesians Chapters 1 and 2 go into details on how being chosen in Christ (Eph 1:4) is to be made alive with Christ (Eph 2:5).

Here is the logical flow from Eph 1 to Eph 2:

• Eph 1:4 → Chosen in Christ.
• Eph 1:5 → Predestined for adoption as sons
• Eph 2:1-3 → Before salvation (being chosen in Christ), we were dead in sin
• Eph 2:4-5 → Because of God’s mercy and love, those chosen in Christ are made alive with Christ

As for still being dead in one's sins because one has not yet believed in Christ, Eph 2:1-3 explains that clearly in line with what I wrote in my previous paragraphs. And John 8:24 drives it home.

(John 8:24) "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins."

Therefore, a person who is chosen in Christ (made alive in Christ) but not yet called to believe in Christ (still dead in his sins) is a Living Dead person, a zombie monstrocity that is an impossibility and proves my answer to your question.

All of those people in the Ephesians text were already living in the salvific covenant relationship. Every word of every verse is monergistic. John 8:24 occurs in the larger context of God having already stated no one believes, no one seeks, AND the context of no one being able to come to God except through Christ, and no one being able to come through Christ unless the Father drags the individual to His Son (some folks like to point out the word is "draws" but the Greek word is the word used to describe the lifting of a heavy weight, like the hauling a net full of fish out of water. It is a strenuous, forceful "drawing," not a passive or cooperative bilateral event). And there's no mention of any covenant in any of those verses.

So.....


You're still off topic, still trying to set your own agenda, and still mucking up the thread. You can have the conversation you want with others but please do not quote me and pretend you're saying something relevant when you are not. This op is about the covenantal context of salvation and the effort to start at the beginning of a (salvific) covenant relationship and examine its constituent elements is intentional and purposeful. I am not interested in you running ahead and skipping over two-thirds of the Bible for your own purposes.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

It's sad, because we probably agree on most, if not all of what scripture states and reports about the covenant context of salvation.... and had we walked together from beginning to end that would be demonstrated to the edification of all the readers.

 

[JoshebB]

In NO Covenant does God choose the participants in the manner in which you mean it.

Prove it.

Let's start with the first occasion in which scripture specifically and explicitly uses the word, "covenant."

Genesis 6:11-22
Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. You shall make a window for the ark and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.


Prove God did not choose Noah and the other seven in the manner I "mean" it. Before you do so, explain to me what it is you think I mean and how you know what I mean (or maybe acknowledge you're not a mind-reader, should not be making the discussion personal, and it would be better to ask for clarification than presume something that might not be correct).


Tell me what I mean and then prove God did not choose Noah as described.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That is incorrect and what you just posted contradicts your several of your prior statements.

• A covenant is not the same thing as a contract.
• As has already been uniformly observed by everyone here (including you) and well established in scripture, God did NOT ask anyone before He decided to initiate a covenant. He initiated the covenant without asking anyone.
• After initiating the covenant, God then chose the covenant participant and, again, God did not ask a single one of them if they wanted to be chosen.
• Likewise, after initiating the covenant, and choosing its participant(s), God then called that person and, again, He did not ask any one of them if they wanted to be called.
• After initiating the covenant, and choosing the participant and calling the participant, God then commanded that individual or group and, again, He did so without ever asking if they wanted to be commanded, without ever considering obedience to the covenant command an option, and without ever considering them non-members. He commanded them as covenant members.
• The question pertaining to participation does not occur until after those first five conditions is all already established.

You cannot then say both parts have to agree when the facts in evidence prove otherwise. Furthermore, the "contract" analogy fails because a contract is a negotiation. Each party in a contract asks for and expects each other under the burden of obligation to comply, and each party can levy penalties as stipulated in the contract and agreed upon by both parties. In the covenants God initiates in the Bible the creature does not dictate to the Creator.

Let's clear this up before proceeding.

Thanks for your response, JoshebB.

Since "covenant" is the key word in your thread, I would appreciate very much to know how you will define "covenant".

I agree that God was the one to choose who would participate in the covenant.
I agree that God put the terms of it, without any negotiation.

The only thing I am saying is that God expects from us to agree to comply with the covenant (not to design it), because otherwise He would not have presented it as a covenant, but as a decree. "You will do X" instead of "If you do X, I will do Y".

What is your view of the text I presented from Exodus 19? Why did Moses take back the response of the children of Israel to God, if God didn't expect at all any response from the other party?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I don't believe God's judgments are evil...
they're just.

And @Pancho didn't reply or give me a like...so I'm not 100% sure he agrees with my post no. 207.

I agree, but I also think it was very wicked of Adam to prefer to serve satan instead of God who made him.
I almost think it was personal,,,if that could be possible with God.
And so, yes, the breaking of the commandment was very grave.


Amen.
Agreed 100%


I don't think Pancho is saying that they don't really matter.
I wish HE would respond here.
The Baha'i people happen to be very nice people with high moral values.

Maybe he means that not only Christianity teaches this but also other religions, but in different ways.



I agree with this.
Don't you?
Other religions also teach not to kill and steal.
God wanted to get Abram out of UR so God could start a religion teaching that HE is the true God and not the pagan gods.
But not all religions worshipped pagan gods....some worship the one true God.


This is very complicated.
If a person does not know Jesus...we can say that the above is most probably correct.
IF a person comes to know Jesus...then I think it's a totally different story.

This is the problem as I see it:
Christianity is the only religion that states that its messenger is God.
No other religion believes their messenger is God.
Jesus was resurrected to prove He was God.

And rejecting Jesus, for us, is like rejecting God.
So, you see, it's not as easy as we Christians like to think.


The problem here is that some can only know their own religion.
If it is worhsipping GOD and its adherents obey the natural laws of God (like the Noahic Laws) then I do believe that Pancho is correct.

Have you read Romans 1:19-21 (about)? I won't post it. Read it and let me know what you think about it.
Read also Romans 2:14-15

And I'd direct to all those verses that state that God will render to each man as are his works/deed.
John 5:28-29 and many others.

And this is correct. You're a Christian and should hold to Christian tenets.
If anything,,,I think Pancho could expand your horizon and maybe get God out of the box many seem to want to keep Him in.

Correct. Agreed.
But we are not like those that shrink back...
Hebrews 10:39

Here's how I understand it Studyman:
FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.
WORKS WITHOUT FAITH ARE DEAD.

IOW....we need faith first...
and then we also need works (which would be obedience to God as you've been posting).

LOL
Your very soul.

Agreed.

I agree with all you posted, @GodsGrace. Thanks for understanding and further explaining my point.
Yes, the specific laws that were part of the covenant made with the children of Israel through Moses were specific for them.
Certainly, I believe that the essence of the covenant ("If you love me over all things and love your neighbor I will bless you") is universal.

I want to insist that Israelites never expected Greeks or Persians or Hitites to abide by all the terms of the Covenant (eg keeping the Sabbath, abstain from pork or reproduce the same rituals of the tabernacle) At least before the exile in Babylon, YHWH was, first and foremost, their national God. The God of Israel. The God of the armies of Israel.

What did Israelites expected from other nations (not foreigners living within Israel territory, but nations abroad)?
Well, they should deal with Israel in a peaceful and cooperative manner. In the future, they would end up recognizing the God of Israel as the Supreme God, based on the admiration of Israel as a great nation (in material and spiritual terms).
Such recognition (and any practice derived from it) was not tied to the salvation of the souls of those foreign people. Nobody was WORRIED or took measures to send missionaries to convert mankind to Judaism, moved by the idea that if Ethiopians or Arabs did not comply with Moses Law, their sins would not be forgiven and they would roast in hell forever.

This is why most of the first Christian Jews felt surprised, puzzled or outraged with the idea of going out preaching to the Gentiles. That had never been part of their religion.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

And that God didn't expect people to leave their religions, or the worship of their gods, and "Yield themselves" to HIM in obedience to His Judgments, Statutes and commandments, as long as they were kind to one another.

Hi Studyman and @GodsGrace

The terms of the covenant between God and the Hebrews had

1. Universal moral laws such as "Honor your father and mother"
2. Ritual or social laws that were particularly design to address the needs and circumstances of Israel.

For example, circumcision was a practice that was prevalent in the Middle East. God took it and adapted it to make it a sign of a covenant with the children of Abraham. But circumcision was not a practice in China. On the contrary, in Chinese perspective, the body was not to be mutilated... it would be like desecrating a gift given by your parents and ancestors.

Circumcision worked in the mind of Hebrews. Not in the mind of Chinese.
So, circumcision was part of the expectations of God for the children of Abraham. Not part of the expectations for the Chinese.
Honoring the parents, though, was part of the expectations of God for both Hebrews and Chinese.

(The most likely thing is that Hebrew ladies and Chinese ladies never met, but I wanted to represent them together in this graphic as if they had)

 

[GodsGrace]

and... (what's the point you're attempting to make?)

I believe you're the OP?
Didn't you ask for someone in the NT that believed but had not heard the gospel message?
Perhaps not.
No matter.

Then let me encourage you to read through the thread so you better understand what has already transpired (so questions already answered, and points already addressed won't be asked again). The op (opening post) specifies which covenant, and the subsequent posts clarify the matter. The covenant we are discussing is the covenant in Christ that saves. Salvation never occurs outside of that covenant relationship.

J....being the OP maybe you know how forums works.
A person brings up a topic and, as time goes on, new members can join in.
The thread might be up to 2 or 3 hundred posts and sometimes more.
Do you really expect each new member that joins in to read each and every post?

That's not really how it works.

Read the thread. So far, with each element of every covenant God initiates scriptures reports, and all of the posters agree, the elements discussed so far are NOT bilateral. A little time can be saved by reading the post above this one (Post 221) where the thread has been summarized, and the matter of co-participation has been addressed. Reading through the thread will elaborate on the bullet points in that post.

Not every covenant is bilateral.
I actually asked you about a specific covenant which was not recognizable to me but
you didn't give it a name but wrote the above instead.

I'll go to post 221 and reply to that.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is incorrect and what you just posted contradicts your several of your prior statements.

You're discussing covenantal choice with another member and I also don't understand what he means.
Will only comment on your bullet points.

• A covenant is not the same thing as a contract.

Agreed.
Just as with God a promise becomes an OATH.

• As has already been uniformly observed by everyone here (including you) and well established in scripture, God did NOT ask anyone before He decided to initiate a covenant. He initiated the covenant without asking anyone.

Agreed.
God needs no one's permission.

• After initiating the covenant, God then chose the covenant participant and, again, God did not ask a single one of them if they wanted to be chosen.

Agreed.
I think we can say that the Covenants were with the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews.
Only the New Covenant involved all the nations.

• Likewise, after initiating the covenant, and choosing its participant(s), God then called that person and, again, He did not ask any one of them if they wanted to be called.

God didn't ask the "person" if they wanted to be called....
but sometimes God INVOLVED the other party in some way.
For instance the Mosaic Covenant....the Israelites had to agree to obey.

• After initiating the covenant, and choosing the participant and calling the participant, God then commanded that individual or group and, again, He did so without ever asking if they wanted to be commanded, without ever considering obedience to the covenant command an option, and without ever considering them non-members. He commanded them as covenant members.

What do you think of the Mosaic Covenant?
Were the Israelites not asked to cooperate?
It was a BILATERAL Covenant and had CONDITIONS.

• The question pertaining to participation does not occur until after those first five conditions is all already established.

You cannot then say both parts have to agree when the facts in evidence prove otherwise. Furthermore, the "contract" analogy fails because a contract is a negotiation.

This is correct.

Each party in a contract asks for and expects each other under the burden of obligation to comply, and each party can levy penalties as stipulated in the contract and agreed upon by both parties. In the covenants God initiates in the Bible the creature does not dictate to the Creator.

Agreed. God make the conditions.

 

[GodsGrace]

Prove it.

Let's start with the first occasion in which scripture specifically and explicitly uses the word, "covenant."

Genesis 6:11-22
Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. You shall make a window for the ark and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.


Prove God did not choose Noah and the other seven in the manner I "mean" it. Before you do so, explain to me what it is you think I mean and how you know what I mean (or maybe acknowledge you're not a mind-reader, should not be making the discussion personal, and it would be better to ask for clarification than presume something that might not be correct).


Tell me what I mean and then prove God did not choose Noah as described.

Goodness J....why are you so upset?

I'm not going to prove anything until I understand your position.
I just replied to no. 221 and will wait for your response.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Not every covenant is bilateral.

I acknowledge, thanks to the posts of @Johann, @JoshebB and yourself, @GodsGrace, that sometimes the Bible handles the term "covenant" as a solemn unilateral promise or oath. This is something important I learned from you all.

It should be evident, however, that at other times the Bible uses the term "covenant" in the usual way it is understood in most languages and dictionaries, even by Christian theologians*. The usual meaning is a formal or solemn agreement between two or more parties.
So, in studying the topic of a salvific covenant, we should recognize that the term is used sometimes in one way, sometimes in another way.

In Exodus 19:8, it is clear that Moses considered the agreement of the children of Israel relevant to the covenant, because he took their assent back to God. This is what a lawyer does when he is helping two parties to set up a formal agreement.

Besides, we all recognize (except perhaps for our Calvinist friends?) that God respects our free will. So, a salvific covenant, although not negotiated, is also not imposed, but proposed.

*****

*NOTE: I asked to Geminis AI model "What is the definition of COVENANT for Christian theologians? The answer is below.

For Christian theologians, a covenant is a fundamental concept for understanding the structure of the Bible and God's relationship with humanity. The term "covenant" originates from the Latin "con venire," signifying a coming together, and implies an agreement between two or more parties involving promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities. In its essence, a covenant is an oath-bound relationship.​

​

Key aspects of a covenant in Christian theology:​

• Binding Agreement: A covenant is typically a formal, solemn, and binding agreement between two or more parties, often involving promises or commitments1.
• God and Humanity: Biblically, a covenant often refers to a solemn agreement between God and humans, where God makes promises and sets conditions to be fulfilled.
• Redemptive Plan: Covenants are viewed as God's way of unfolding His redemptive plan throughout history, providing the framework for the entire biblical narrative.
  • Covenant of Redemption: An agreement among the Trinity to save a select group of individuals.
  • Covenant of Works: God's promise to bless people for perfect obedience.
  • Covenant of Grace: God's promise to save people on the condition of their believing in Christ.
• Conditional with Consequences: Divine covenants often have conditions, and failure to adhere to these conditions results in consequences.
• Atonement and Salvation: Covenant theology explains the atonement, assurance of salvation, sacraments, redemptive history, and the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in the Christian life.
• Blood Bond: Some theologians define the biblical form of a covenant as "a bond in blood, sovereignly administered" by God.

Covenant theology is a framework that helps understand God's work throughout history, emphasizing that God gathers people through covenantal relationships.​

 

[Studyman]

Hi, Studyman.

I made a mistake concerning the proselytes of Pharisees.
They were foreigners, and not Israelites.
However, these foreigners lived in Israel. As you can read in the passage of Leviticus you read, foreigners living in Israel were expected to join the religion of Israel. It was a matter of integration to society. However, God did not send prophets abroad to convert them into Judaism, and never reproached the people of Israel for not having embarked in a missionary mission abroad.

When you read the Old Testament, you can also notice that even in the case of friendly countries, Jews made no active effort to convert them to Judaism, and there is no lamentation about the eternal fate of the millions of souls outside of Israel. Prophecies about the punishment of other nations had to do with the violence and arrogance of their leaders (kings, armies) against Israel, but not about their stubbornness in rejecting the covenant made through Moses.

Hi Pancho.

I get that men have adopted a religious philosophy that rejects much of God's Judgments and Commandments as not being written for them, but for men based on a certain DNA they were born with. This is a very popular religious philosophy promoted by "many" different religious businesses and sects of this world's religious system. And they use select verses and stories, while rejecting others in scriptures to justify their specific philosophy. This also is a most popular religious tradition of this world.

To justify this belief, men must promote the idea that God set apart, sanctified and made Holy, the 7th day of the 7 day week HE created, "For man" according to His Son, but didn't share His creation with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph or anyone until Moses was chosen by God to give Abraham's Children HIS Laws, Judgments, Statutes, Commandments, AKA, "The Way of the Lord" that HE said Abraham commanded his children to keep. I would also have to believe that God destroyed Sodom for transgressing His Laws that didn't exist. That it was just a coincidence that Noah's 2 sons knew better than to look on the nakedness of their father Noah, and the 3rd son also knew, but transgressed the commandment. That it was just a coincidence that Amalek knew the wrath of God concerning Adultery. That Noah knew the difference between Clean and Unclean animals but he, and/or God didn't share this judgment of God with his sons or anyone else, until Moses.

For me, why would I make such assumptions? Why not just Trust that God isn't a respecter of persons, and that anyone, Jew or greek, "that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant" will be considered by God His Children.

As for the nations they traveled through, because I believe all that is written in the Law and Prophets, I understood why God didn't drive out the serpent from Adam's decedents, and why HE didn't drive out all the nations from before Israel.

Jud. 2: 21 I also will not henceforth drive out any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died: 22 That through them I may prove Israel, whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their fathers (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) did keep it, or not. 23 Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua.

I would have to believe the "Way of the Lord" Abraham commanded his children to keep, was different than the "Way of the Lord" Joshua promoted. There is no real evidence of this, but there is evidence that God doesn't change.

This is why this world God placed you and I in is filled with religious businesses all competing against each other for contributing members, but all "Transgressing God's commandments by their own religious traditions", to sort out those who are "doers" of His Instruction, like Abraham and Caleb, from those are "hearers only", like the Israelites who fell in the wilderness. As for the assumption that the Nations didn't know about the God of Abraham, I believe the Scriptures do not support this popular religious philosophy either. Consider the story about Rehab.

Josh. 2: 9 And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. 10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. 11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

So the assumption that the nations didn't know about the God of Abraham because there was no mention of missionaries, is also an assumption not supported by Scripture.

12 Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token: 13 And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.

I have come to understand that most will not accept this God's judgments, commandments and statutes as they have been convinced that they are worthless Jewish Traditions, or as you have said, just another religious sect.

The Bible speaks to this throughout it's pages. 600,000 Israelites, plus a mixed multitude, promised to be "doers" of God's instruction, and yet only 2 truly Loved God with all their heart, mind and soul. Jesus said to "Strive" to enter the narrow Path HE walked, but that few will enter.

So it's nothing strange or surprising that I am surrounded by a lot of men who profess to know God, many even calling Jesus Lord, Lord, that are transgressing God's Commandments by their own religious traditions.

Who knows, Yes? So, live by Faith that was in Christ Jesus, and Hope that the God whose words HE said to live by are trustworthy "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works".


After all, we all "Yield ourselves" servants to something.

 

[GodsGrace]

I acknowledge, thanks to the posts of @Johann, @JoshebB and yourself, @GodsGrace, that sometimes the Bible handles the term "covenant" as a solemn unilateral promise, or oath. This is something important I learned thanks to you.

It should be evident, however, that at other times the Bible uses the term "covenant" in the usual way it is understood in most languages and dictionaries, even by Christian theologians*. The usual meaning is a formal or solemn agreement between two or more parties.
So, in studying the topic of a salvific covenant, we should recognize that the term is used sometimes in one way, sometimes in another way.

In Exodus 19, it is clear that Moses considered the agreement of the children of Israel relevant to the covenant, because he took their assent back to God. This is what a lawyer does when he is helping two parties to set up a formal agreement.

I've said this before,,,I can't remember to whom.
When speaking of GOD....we use the term Covenant.
The word AGREEMENT is used so that those not familiar with this topic understand basically what a Covenant is.

The above mentions Moses.
The covenant with Moses was the Mosaic Covenant.
It was:
BILATERAL.....the Israellites had to agree.
CONDITIONAL.....it was based on the condition that the Israelites had to obey.
The sign was the Sabbath.

These are the conditons:
The blessings are found in Lev 26:3-23 and Deuteronomy 28:1-14
The curses are found in Lev 26:14-46 and Deuteronmy 28:15-68

*****

*NOTE: I asked to Geminis AI model "What is the definition of COVENANT for Christian theologians? The answer is below.

For Christian theologians, a covenant is a fundamental concept for understanding the structure of the Bible and God's relationship with humanity. The term "covenant" originates from the Latin "con venire," signifying a coming together, and implies an agreement between two or more parties involving promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities. In its essence, a covenant is an oath-bound relationship.​

​

Key aspects of a covenant in Christian theology:​

• Binding Agreement: A covenant is typically a formal, solemn, and binding agreement between two or more parties, often involving promises or commitments1.
• God and Humanity: Biblically, a covenant often refers to a solemn agreement between God and humans, where God makes promises and sets conditions to be fulfilled.

These are the "persons" involved in the different covenants:

KING TO SERVANT: UNCONDITIONAL, UNILATERAL
EQUAL PARTIES: CONDITIONAL, BILATERAL
SOVEREIGN/KING TO VASSAL: CONDITIONAL, BILATERAL

• Redemptive Plan: Covenants are viewed as God's way of unfolding His redemptive plan throughout history, providing the framework for the entire biblical narrative2.
  • Covenant of Redemption: An agreement among the Trinity to save a select group of individuals.
  • Covenant of Works: God's promise to bless people for perfect obedience1.
  • Covenant of Grace: God's promise to save people on the condition of their believing in Christ1.

The above are terms I'm not familiar with and Covenant of Grace is usually used by reformed/calvinist theologians..
The names of the 3 covenants above are not titles found in the "normal" study of the covenants.

• Conditional with Consequences: Divine covenants often have conditions, and failure to adhere to these conditions results in consequences4.
• Atonement and Salvation: Covenant theology explains the atonement, assurance of salvation, sacraments, redemptive history, and the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in the Christian life.
• Blood Bond: Some theologians define the biblical form of a covenant as "a bond in blood, sovereignly administered" by God3.

Again,,,the above refer to the reformed faith.
Only the first item is familiar to me.

Covenant theology is a framework that helps understand God's work throughout history, emphasizing that God gathers people through covenantal relationships.​

Correct.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So the assumption that the nations didn't know about the God of Abraham because there was no mention of missionaries, is also an assumption not supported by Scripture.

I think that all nations knew somehow about the Only and True God, my friend.
What I say is that God did not give all nations the same specific ritual laws, or used the same terms and symbols, or social and community norms, as part of his covenants, promises or plans.
Ancient Chinese didn't measure time in weeks, and we have absolutely no historical evidence that God had sent any messenger or prophet to the Chinese to encourage them to keep the Sabbath... and no evidence within the Bible that God condemned foreign nations for violating the Sabbath.

In addition, God could give to the same nation, different rituals or signs of His Covenant at different historical times.
For example, Jesus explicitly commanded his Jewish disciples to baptize others, but Moses did not command that. Did he?
God told Abraham that circumcision would be an "everlasting covenant" (Genesis17:13). So important, that people rejecting circumcision would be "cutt of" from the nation (17:14). However, centuries later, Paul declares it optional, irrelevant if you have circumcised your heart.

We can discuss the commandment of keeping the Sabbath in a separate thread if you are interested, Studyman.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think that all nations knew somehow about the Only and True God, my friend.
What I say is that God did not give all nations the same specific ritual laws, or used the same terms and symbols, or social and community norms, as part of his covenants, promises or plans.
Ancient Chinese didn't measure time in weeks, and we have absolutely no historical evidence that God had sent any messenger or prophet to the Chinese to encourage them to keep the Sabbath... and no evidence within the Bible that God condemned foreign nations for violating the Sabbath.

In addition, God could give to the same nation, different rituals or signs of His Covenant at different historical times.
For example, Jesus explicitly commanded his Jewish disciples to baptize others, but Moses did not command that. Did he?
God told Abraham that circumcision would be an "everlasting covenant" (Genesis17:13). So important, that people rejecting circumcision would be "cutt of" from the nation (17:14). However, centuries later, Paul declares it optional, irrelevant if you have circumcised your heart.

We can discuss the commandment of keeping the Sabbath in a separate thread if you are interested, Studyman.

This is not for me but just want to say:

For the Abrahamic Covenant the sign was circumcision.

It's to be noted that every covenant changes or makes better the previous covenant.
Because the sign for the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision...it does not mean that this had to hold true for each
succeeding covenant.

However, it's the covenant itself that was everlasting...not the circumcision.
And, in fact, Abraham did become the father of many nations through his geneology through Jesus and the new Covenant, available to all nations.

I agree with all the rest.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This is not for me but just want to say:

For the Abrahamic Covenant the sign was circumcision.

It's to be noted that every covenant changes or makes better the previous covenant.
Because the sign for the Abrahamic Covenant was circumcision...it does not mean that this had to hold true for each
succeeding covenant.

However, it's the covenant itself that was everlasting...not the circumcision.
And, in fact, Abraham did become the father of many nations through his geneology through Jesus and the new Covenant, available to all nations.

I agree with all the rest.

Yes, I agree 100%.
The signs and rituals change, but the essential basis of the covenant is eternal.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, I agree 100%.
The signs and rituals change, but the essential basis of the covenant is eternal.

No Pancho....
MORE than the rituals change.
The signs change too...
but, just to clarify, the actual Covenant changes.

You know this is not an easy study.
It took me hours and hours to learn this.

If you really want to understand well, you'd have to look up
1. What a Covenant is.
2. Study each Covenant separately.
3. Stay away from reformed theology re the Covenants.
For instance they call the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace.

Here is a list of some if you really want to do this:
THE EDENIC COVENANT
THE ADAMIC COVENANT
THE NOAHIC "
ABRAHAMIC
MOSAIC
PALESTINIAN
DAVIDIC
NEW COVENANT

These are the ones I studied. There are more believe it or not!

I really did this because I had to teach them, but I did find it very helpful in understanding my faith, the tie between the old and new testaments and God's relationship to man.

It's a good deal of work....

 

[Studyman]

Hi Studyman and @GodsGrace

The terms of the covenant between God and the Hebrews had

1. Universal moral laws such as "Honor your father and mother"
2. Ritual or social laws that were particularly design to address the needs and circumstances of Israel.

For example, circumcision was a practice that was prevalent in the Middle East. God took it and adapted it to make it a sign of a covenant with the children of Abraham.

I don't believe the Holy Scriptures support your philosophy that God, in His attempt to create a new religion to compete with the religions of the world, copied the religious pagan rituals from manmade pagan gods worshipped in the world God placed Abraham in, and adopted them as His own, and then passed them on to Abraham as a sign between Abraham and God.

But circumcision was not a practice in China. On the contrary, in Chinese perspective, the body was not to be mutilated... it would be like desecrating a gift given by your parents and ancestors.

Ancient cultures have had practices of body mutilation for centuries.

The Chinese bound the feet of their little girls as a status symbol and sign of beauty. This ritual practice mutilated the feet of women and caused them lifelong disabilities. So your statement about the Chinese perspective does not reflect the historical record.

You have said in your posts that the Law and Prophets are a series of Parables. I couldn't agree more, since that is what the God described therein declares. The entire Exodus took place in the Middle East, not Asia. Every Nation that Israel passed through knew of and had rejected the God of Abraham, for other gods who were no Gods. This is, according to Scriptures, examples of the journey men who trust God in our time, will deal with. Abraham traveled through nations who knew God, but didn't Glorify Him as God. (Sodom) In the world God placed you and I in, just like the world Abraham traveled through, just as in the world Israel journeyed through, "EVERY" Nation, every country, every person we encounter, knows of the God of Abraham. Knows of His Messenger Moses and His Son Jesus. Many just don't believe their Sayings.

As I have posted, the Parables in Scriptures were not written for Abraham or the people of that time, but for us, as Peter and Paul and Jesus teach. And they are written "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works". And the Christ described therein instructed men to Live By these Words of God.

This is what I advocate, and it is not well received by the religious system of this world, as also prophesied.

Circumcision worked in the mind of Hebrews. Not in the mind of Chinese.

Circumcision is the foundation of God's Salvation plan. Self-denial, ruling over the Flesh, is the basis for understanding God's Salvation plan, and being a Godly man. This is shown to us in the first part of the first book in the Bible. A society cannot exist for long, if they do not promote self-discipline, ruling over emotions etc.

Even satan understands this. And every pagan god promotes some form of "circumcision" as the context in which God used it. After all, the serpent quotes God's Word to deceive men on earth. Its goal is to separate God from His Word. To convince men to rely on their own reasoning, as opposed to "Yielding oneself" in obedience to God as the Scriptures promote. The Bible is full of examples of men who trusted God in obedience, vs. men who professed to know God, but were disobedient to His Instruction in righteousness.

We look at these things differently because I see the Scriptures as a way to know and understand God. But you are using select scriptures as a tool of justification for an adopted religious philosophy which rejects God's Sabbaths and Judgments as just another religious ritual of this world.

Having been a member in times past, of this world's religious system, I was taught to engage in the same practice. As a Baptist, I used select scriptures as a tool of justification for the Baptist Philosophy, while ignoring or omitting Scriptures which would bring question to the philosophy. The Pharisees engaged in the same practice, as it is written.

Mal. 2: 7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. 8 But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. 9 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.

Matt. 23: 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, (As instructed by God) and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

A Chinese person who hears of the God of Abraham, just as the Centurian, will SEEK this God and when he does, as it is written, he may "choose" to "join himself to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, and keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of God's covenant.

And this God of Abraham has promised that "Even him will HE bring to HIS holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer".

Men have been devising other ways to enter God's Holy Mountain since before the Tower of Babel.

I'm fine with the "Way of the Lord" that Jesus walked in, having joined myself to this God.

So, circumcision was part of the expectations of God for the children of Abraham. Not part of the expectations for the Chinese.
Honoring the parents, though, was part of the expectations of God for both Hebrews and Chinese.

I understand that honoring the parents for a child or teenager of any society, takes self-discipline, self-denial. To learn to rule over the flesh in matters of rebellion that all young adults go through is essential for good development. But Nazis taught their children to honor their parents. Hamas, as they parade the bodies of dead children that they murdered through their streets, cheering "God is Good", teach their children to honor their parents.

So clearly, there must be more to the Commandment of God isn't there? In like manner, as Paul described, there is more to Circumcision than cutting lose skin off the penis. (Doth God care about the oxen or the penis?)

Instead of using this topic as a justification to reject God's judgments and commandments, as "many" who profess to know God do. I have chosen to study the topic, that I might better understand God and His Parables, in hope of gaining Spiritual understanding that Jesus speaks about.

But if I study in rebellion to God. That is, if I am stealing money from poor widows, and studying to gain Spiritual understanding of God, will HE grant me understanding? What if I am living in hatred of a man who did me no wrong, will God grant me spiritual understanding? What if I am studying while lusting after another man's wife, will God grant me Spiritual understanding? What if I study while selling BBQ pork ribs for profit on God's Holy sabbaths, will HE grant me Spiritual understanding?

And can I be a man of God without being learned of God? And why would a man tempt God by doing any of these things?

 

[Studyman]

You cannot then say both parts have to agree when the facts in evidence prove otherwise.

I don't believe the Scriptures support this philosophy. God has "a Way", and HE offers His Way to men. It's not a negotiation, this is true. The man cannot say, "Well God, I want the Reward you offer, and I'll "profess to know you", but I'm not going to change this part of my life, or that tradition or practice just because you instruct against it." Both parties have to agree to keep their end of the bargain. As it is written:

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

In this contract/agreement, God gives the terms and makes a promise. "IF" Abram agrees to the terms, God if Faithful to execute His Promises.

"IF" Abram breaks the terms of the agreement, God is not bound to provide the Promises.

 

[synergy]

All of those people in the Ephesians text were already living in the salvific covenant relationship. Every word of every verse is monergistic.

Here is again the logical flow from Eph 1 to Eph 2:

• Eph 1:4 → Chosen in Christ.
• Eph 1:5 → Predestined for adoption as sons
• Eph 2:1-3 → Before salvation (being chosen in Christ), we were dead in sin
• Eph 2:4-5 → Because of God’s mercy and love, those chosen in Christ are made alive with Christ

So although the people are presently in a salvific covenant relationship, you can't say the same thing about them before when they were dead in sin.

John 8:24 occurs in the larger context of God having already stated no one believes, no one seeks, AND the context of no one being able to come to God except through Christ, and no one being able to come through Christ unless the Father drags the individual to His Son (some folks like to point out the word is "draws" but the Greek word is the word used to describe the lifting of a heavy weight, like the hauling a net full of fish out of water. It is a strenuous, forceful "drawing," not a passive or cooperative bilateral event). And there's no mention of any covenant in any of those verses.

In John 8:24 Jesus is clearing exhorting the Pharisees to actively believe in Him. This is not a passive call (as you pointed out) but an extremely vehement call by Jesus for the Pharisees to actively (synergistically) believe in Him.

So.....


You're still off topic, still trying to set your own agenda, and still mucking up the thread. You can have the conversation you want with others but please do not quote me and pretend you're saying something relevant when you are not. This op is about the covenantal context of salvation and the effort to start at the beginning of a (salvific) covenant relationship and examine its constituent elements is intentional and purposeful. I am not interested in you running ahead and skipping over two-thirds of the Bible for your own purposes.

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

If you wish to avoid discussing these verses any further then that's your choice.

It's sad, because we probably agree on most, if not all of what scripture states and reports about the covenant context of salvation.... and had we walked together from beginning to end that would be demonstrated to the edification of all the readers.

You are very correct here.