The Covenant Context of Salvation

[JoshebB]

No.
At least, not in a way demanding from man to understand he is making a covenant with Christ.

Try the following...

Galatians 3:8-9,16
The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All nations will be blessed in you." So, then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer................... Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

The gospel was preached to Abraham. The promises contained in that gospel were spoken to Abraham..... and his seed, Jesus. Abraham understood that it would be God pledging fealty to God, pledging His life to God.

Genesis 15:17-18
It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I have given this land....."

That had nothing to do with Israel (which would not exist for several hundred years) and everything to do with 1 Peter 2:9.

 

[JoshebB]

My friend, to summarize how we arrived here:

1. You asked in post 4 "Can either of you cite for me an example from the Bible of someone having a salvific relationship with God outside that which exists with His resurrected Son Jesus (the person and/or the "Truth")?
2. I gave two examples (Kind David and the Ninevites)
3. You rejected the examples providing your rationale.
4. I am presenting arguments against that rationale.
5. You rejected my argument saying I was making it "out of silence"
6. I am showing how this is not an argument "out of silence", but a reasonable expectation.

Let's go back to your original topic about the covenant, my friend.

You did not give two examples of someone saved outside of a covenant in Christ. Neither David or the Ninevites qualify, and your arguments against the rejection likewise fail. You have argued from silence and not a reasonable expectation. The analogies fail and with each post the departure from the op increases while the facts in evidence are ignored.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You did not give two examples of someone saved outside of a covenant in Christ. Neither David or the Ninevites qualify, and your arguments against the rejection likewise fail. You have argued from silence and not a reasonable expectation. The analogies fail and with each post the departure from the op increases while the facts in evidence are ignored.

You have provided evidence that King David knew about the Messiah and his resurrection... not that such notion was a condition for his salvation.
This is a non-sequitur fallacy. By the same token:

• Isaiah did also speak about the Messiah to come, and this had no relationship whatsoever with the way God took away his sins, as described in Isaiah 6:6.
• You preach that the Messiah will come again in a visible way, descending from heaven, and you probably believe that some events will take place in the future as predicted in the Book of Revelation, yet you don't think that adhering to such notions is a condition for people to get forgiven by God and transformed into new men.

The example of the Ninevites is unassailable: nobody can provide evidence even that they knew the slightest thing about a Messiah to come, despite Jesus confirmed they had truly repented and would judge those who had the chance to know the Messiah.

So, before disqualifying the examples as invalid, I would ask you to support your invalidation with arguments.
So far, your only attempt to support your invalidation is a speech given many centuries later by Peter, which is NOT addressing the topic of how people in the past were saved. Less so how Chinese and Inuit people were saved.

 

[Dizerner]

The example of the Ninevites is unassailable:

The Ninevites were spared physical judgment on their city.

It did not say nor imply that somehow this granted them spiritual salvation, for which they would need to fully accept the God of Israel.

God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (Jon. 3:10 NKJ)

Consider yourself "assailed."

 

[JoshebB]

You have provided evidence that King David knew about the Messiah and his resurrection... not that such notion was a condition for his salvation.

It was you who asserted the mater of "condition" and separated it from his acknowledged knowledge of his identity as the Abrahamic seed, the eternal King, and the promise of resurrection. Logically, that is a red herring. It does not warrant a response other than to name the fallacy.

The fact is there is no salvation apart from the name of Jesus. Therefore, if anyone has ever been saved then s/he was necessarily saved by the name and person of Christ. The moment you acknowledged David was saved then Acts 4:12 applied.

This is a non-sequitur fallacy. By the same token:

• Isaiah did also speak about the Messiah to come, and this had no relationship whatsoever with the way God took away his sins, as described in Isaiah 6:6.
• You preach that the Messiah will come again in a visible way, descending from heaven, and you probably believe that some events will take place in the future as predicted in the Book of Revelation, yet you don't think that adhering to such notions is a condition for people to get forgiven by God and transformed into new men.

Another digressive red herring. We're not taking about Isaiah foretelling of the Messiah's appearance and I doubt you know much, if anything, about my eschatological views.

The example of the Ninevites is unassailable: nobody can provide evidence even that they knew the slightest thing about a Messiah to come, despite Jesus confirmed they had truly repented and would judge those who had the chance to know the Messiah.

If they were saved from sin, then Acts 4:12 applies. You have yet to explain how that is not the case. If, on the other hand, Ninevah was saved only from temporal judgment then they don't qualify as having been saved from sin and, again, the example fails. Not all salvation in scripture is soteriological, and the op stipulates salvation from sin and wrath...... in the "Soteriology - The Doctrine of Salvation" board. Lots of people in the Bible were spared temporal judgment dependent upon their repentance but they were not saved from sin and the wrath commensurate to that sin. Do not confuse or conflate the two.

So, before disqualifying the examples as invalid, I would ask you to support your invalidation with arguments.

Done.

So far, your only attempt to support your invalidation is a speech given many centuries later by Peter, which is NOT addressing the topic of how people in the past were saved. Less so how Chinese and Inuit people were saved.

I'll add straw man to the growing list of logical fallacies you've employed so far. The newer revelation explains the older revelation and citing peter was not the "only attempt." That is simply disingenuous.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The fact is there is no salvation apart from the name of Jesus. Therefore, if anyone has ever been saved then s/he was necessarily saved by the name and person of Christ. The moment you acknowledged David was saved then Acts 4:12 applied.

Hi Josheb

If you mean that ancient Israelites (or Chinese, for that matter) who were saved, were saved by Jesus Christ, even if people didn’t know it or understand it, that would be a proposition I could agree with… or at least a proposition I would not oppose or deny.
I suppose it would be consistent with how the gospel presents Jesus praying at the cross for the Roman soldiers who didn’t know Him.

In other words, if preexistent Christ prayed to God to forgive the sin of David, even if David and Nathan didn’t have a clue of what Christ was doing, and even if David and Nathan were not expecting it, praise be to God and his Christ!

What I found absurd is to think that God demanded from ancient Israelites (or ancient Chinese, for that matter) to assent to a blood atonement and/or a resurrection of a future Messiah, as a necessary condition to forgive them and change their lives.

If you don’t think God demanded this, we are in agreement, my brother,

 

[Dizerner]

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:18 NKJ)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'll add straw man to the growing list of logical fallacies you've employed so far. The newer revelation explains the older revelation and citing peter was not the "only attempt." That is simply disingenuous.

Well, that was the only passage you quoted to reject the examples of King David and the Ninevites as valid.
I said that has been your only attempt and so has it been. It is not a strawman fallacy.
I don’t remember having made any logical fallacies in this debate and no red herrings.
I have acknowledged my mistakes many times before and I am willing to keep acknowledging them. Just show them to me, please.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,
but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Cor. 1:18 NKJ)

You said it, and you said it well: the message of the cross.
I uphold that message and its power to change my life and your life.
I encourage you to focus on the message of the cross.

The message of the cross is that of reconciliation with God, forgiveness, obedience, but above all things, love.
The message of the cross is that of a New Covenant, in which God embeds his law in our hearts, take us to know Him, and forgive our sins, just as Jeremiah predicted.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The Ninevites were spared physical judgment on their city.

It did not say nor imply that somehow this granted them spiritual salvation, for which they would need to fully accept the God of Israel.

God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. (Jon. 3:10 NKJ)

Consider yourself "assailed."

Dear @Dizerner and @JoshebB

1. The Ninevites believed in God, as per Jonah 3:5
2. The Ninevites did turn from their evil ways (3:8) and Gods’ decision to save them was based on their turning away from their evil ways (3:10). So, theirs was a spiritual change that God recognized.
3. To claim that the salvation of Nineveh was only material is as absurd as claiming that the salvation of Jonah was only material (from being digested by the gastric fluids of the fish). Both Jonah and the Ninevites were saved from a spiritual condition.
4. Jesus confirmed that they repented, and used their example as an example of spiritual salvation, as Jesus was not preaching his audience to save them from material destruction. Let’s read: The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Mat 12:41)

CONCLUSION: The book of Jonah was written to tell a story of salvation of a Jewish prophet and a non-Jewish nation, based on God’s universal requirement of salvation: REPENTANCE.
The example of Nineveh remains unassailable as one example of salvation that didn’t require knowledge or acceptance of any doctrine related with a future Messiah. It is a valid example for the question made on Post #4.

 

[civic]

You said it, and you said it well: the message of the cross.
I uphold that message and its power to change my life and your life.
I encourage you to focus on the message of the cross.

The message of the cross is that of reconciliation with God, forgiveness, obedience, but above all things, love.
The message of the cross is that of a New Covenant, in which God embeds his law in our hearts, take us to know Him, and forgive our sins, just as Jeremiah predicted.

More nonsense with your rejection of the cross via His blood which provides the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. The cross has no meaning apart from the blood of Christ.

Colossians 1:20- and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

More nonsense with your rejection of the cross via His blood which provides the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. The cross has no meaning apart from the blood of Christ.

Colossians 1:20- and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

• Jesus blood inaugurated the New Covenant, as if it were a signature, a seal with which documents became in force. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• The New Covenant consists in God writing his Law in our hearts. So, the cross simbolizes our obedience out of love and conviction. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• Under the New Covenant everybody will end up knowing God. So, the cross simbolizes our reconciliation with God and our intimate acquaintance with God. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• Under the New Covenant we live in the security of God’s forgiveness. So the cross simbolizes the death of our old life of sin. Please let me know if you agree with this.

Before you reply to this postal please read again the terms of the New Covenant

For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord:
“I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord,
“for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

 

[Dizerner]

I uphold that message

No, you stand against everything the Cross stands for.

The world would not find your redefined Cross foolishness or offensive, and neither do you.

That's how you can know you have removed its message.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The world would not find your redefined Cross foolishness or offensive, and neither do you.

Good point, my brother.
The world (meaning, the evil world) rejects every single meaning of the cross stated in my posts.
Instead of reconciliation with God, the world wants to remain in sin, separated from Him.
Instead of obedience, the world wants rebellion.
Instead of love, the world wants strife, division and hatred.

When you and me are rejected by the world (the evil world) and treated as foolish, it is because it can’t stand the sight of our genuine love of others. They can’t stand our example, our light, our transformed life.

Some pastors or spiritual leaders taught us that the modern world would reject us due to our theology. Well, they were wrong.
The world is as indifferent to our theology as it is indifferent to our genealogy or bowel movements.
The world, however, pays close attention to our public life.

“Your light must shine before people in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorifyyour Father who is in heaven.”

That's how you can know you have removed its message.

The proof of what I stand for is my life. I have taken my own cross. I have followed Jesus. I have been crucified. I have died and been resurrected. I live now in heavenly places… and you, Dizerner, sit with @JoshebB and me at the same table in the weddings of the Lamb. All of this thanks to the undeserved grace of God, who never gives up on us.
Regardless of our theological differences, the three of us feed from the same Bread and drink from the same Spring.
The three of us shine, and non believers, seeing our deeds, glorify God.

So I invite you to continue the debate with open minds and warm hearts.

 

[Red Baker]

Can you cite a covenant with God in the Bible that God did not initiate? Or, to put the same question in other words, is there a covenant with God that God did not, Himself, initiate? Has any human in the Bible ever initiated or instigated a covenant with God.

There are "none", so, I cannot cite even one.....all covenants in the scriptures between God and humanity are initiated by God.

 

[civic]

• Jesus blood inaugurated the New Covenant, as if it were a signature, a seal with which documents became in force. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• The New Covenant consists in God writing his Law in our hearts. So, the cross simbolizes our obedience out of love and conviction. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• Under the New Covenant everybody will end up knowing God. So, the cross simbolizes our reconciliation with God and our intimate acquaintance with God. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• Under the New Covenant we live in the security of God’s forgiveness. So the cross simbolizes the death of our old life of sin. Please let me know if you agree with this.

Before you reply to this postal please read again the terms of the New Covenant

For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord:
“I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord,
“for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

Thanks you just declared the deity of Christ is that passage. That’s what Jesus did.

 

[civic]

There are "none", so, I cannot cite even one.....all covenants in the scriptures between God and humanity are initiated by God.

Via Christ

 

[civic]

• Jesus blood inaugurated the New Covenant, as if it were a signature, a seal with which documents became in force. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• The New Covenant consists in God writing his Law in our hearts. So, the cross simbolizes our obedience out of love and conviction. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• Under the New Covenant everybody will end up knowing God. So, the cross simbolizes our reconciliation with God and our intimate acquaintance with God. Please let me know if you agree with this.
• Under the New Covenant we live in the security of God’s forgiveness. So the cross simbolizes the death of our old life of sin. Please let me know if you agree with this.

Before you reply to this postal please read again the terms of the New Covenant

For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord:
“I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord,
“for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

This covenant is with the house of Israel, the Jews- it has not been fulfilled yet. The Jews still reject their Messiah.

Try a relevant passage. This is not the New Covenant that is for everyone but one God made with the Jews.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

This covenant is with the house of Israel, the Jews- it has not been fulfilled yet. The Jews still reject their Messiah.

Try a relevant passage. This is not the New Covenant that is for everyone but one God made with the Jews.

hope this helps !!!

The epistle to Hebrews presents two covenants: the first, which had expired, and the new, sealed by the blood of Christ.
When speaking about the new covenant, the author of Hebrews, in 8:7-12 refers explicitly to the prophecy of Jeremiah.

This is the only covenant the epistle assigns to Christ, and it is in the context of this NEW covenant that speaks about Christ's priesthood.
Indeed, there is no indication across the New Testament that the new covenant Christ referred to was other than that predicted by Jeremiah.

Christ mentioning of his blood as the sign of the new covenant appears in the three synoptic gospels. In none of these Jesus sets a different set of commitments or expectations. On the contrary, Jesus specific and personal commandment, which asks us to love each other, and Jesus's declaration of a new era in which true worshipers would worship God "in spirit and truth" are consistent with the prophecy of Jeremiah.

So, we can confidently infer that the "New Covenant" of Jesus Christ is the one we can read in the Book of Jeremiah.

I understand your point when you say that the covenant was directed to the house of Israel and Judah... but this would not be the first time that Christians take promises and prophecies directed to Israel and extend them to mankind, the "spiritual Israel".
For example, Christ explicitly said He had been sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Mary his mother understood that the Messiah was promised for Israel. Yet, nothing has stopped us to consider that Jesus came for all mankind.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Thanks you just declared the deity of Christ is that passage. That’s what Jesus did.

We have already gone through these arguments several times.

When the Bible says "God does Z" and "Christ does Z" it means that Christ does Z on behalf of God. That's precisely the reason Christ came: to speak the words and do the works of God. Jesus said it explicitly. Please listen to him.

Who delievered Israel from Egypt? Moses or God?
Who led Israel through the desert? Moses or God?
Who gave Israel the Law? Moses or God?

God did it, through Moses.
So, it is perfectly correct to say that Moses did all those things, and that doesn't make Moses God.