Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Old Covenant has been obliterated (Hebrews 8:13).

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    The key is to note the exodus narrative in Luke-Acts ("Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his exodon, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem"), which climaxes with the Crucifixion (Passover) and the giving of the Spirit (Pentecost, which celebrated the anniversary of the giving of the Law on Sinai). Therefore I believe that the New Covenant was initiated at the last supper and completed by the Crucifixion and Pentecost.

    But I really don't think it's important to pinpoint the precise moment.
    Neither do I. I have repeated this several times but CP insists on being divisive.
    The main focus of the OP was to simply point out how the Old Covenant has been abrogated.
    Rather than to simply post and say he thinks it took place earlier and then left it at that would be fine but for him shake his head for what I had written is absurd - especially when I even cited a source that teaches not all agree with this specific time that I believe.

    From the OP: The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: The primary reference to Pentecost in the NT is in connection with the pouring of the Holy Spirit to dwell in the church (Acts 2:1). This event was in answer to the explicit promise of Christ (Jn. 16:7, 13; Acts 1:4, 14). It is almost universally agreed among theologians that Pentecost marks the beginning of the church as an institution (4:783, Pentecost, C.L. Feinberg).

    He mentions about love and grace to me in Post #25 but has previously not shown it here in Post #18:
    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd-Jesus/page2

    The dude is simply a weirdo.
    Last edited by foudroyant; 01-29-2014, 01:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
      The main focus of the OP was to simply point out how the Old Covenant has been abrogated.
      Yeah, none of us could have figured that out from the Bible.

      We are SO blessed to have your superior intellect, extreme verbosity and supersheerchuality.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        The SDA's haven't figured it out.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
          The SDA's haven't figured it out.
          Well, your kind, gracious and Christ-like instruction will win them for sure.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #35
            I simply posted the facts in the OP. You were the one who initially ridiculed.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
              I simply posted the facts in the OP. You were the one who initially ridiculed.
              RIDICULED?!?!?!?!

              Let's see what I said.....

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post


              The New Covenant began with the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
              If that's ridicule, Foud, you need to grow some thicker skin.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                No, you need to get lost.
                After what I wrote in the OP the first thing you do is to shake that stupid head.

                Millions of people are caught up in this heresy. My wife left it when I showed her the facts such as in the OP. But you come bumbling along and focus on a side issue and insist on something the majority of scholars don't even believe in.

                Rather than posting nothing or posting something about how you hope people such as the SDA will take to heart the evidence I supplied you come along and hijack this thread. For what reason or reasons I do not know but it's really pathetic.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                  No, you need to get lost.
                  I'm one of those "eternal security" dudes, Foud... I can't get lost!

                  After what I wrote in the OP the first thing you do is to shake that stupid head.
                  Well, yeah, I was disagreeing. And it's only an emoticon -- it's not my real head, NOR was my real head really shaking.

                  Millions of people are caught up in this heresy. My wife left it when I showed her the facts such as in the OP.
                  I had a clever comment, but I don't want in any way to insult your wife, so we'll leave that be.

                  But you come bumbling along and focus on a side issue and insist on something the majority of scholars don't even believe in.
                  Bumbling? My, Foud, thou art full of contempt!

                  This is a debate board, Foud --- if you don't want to be challenged, why don't you just get a blog where you can control who posts?

                  And I DO believe that MOST scholars would agree that the New Covenant could NOT be in effect until AFTER the death of Christ, wouldn't you agree?
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    From Post #31: Rather than to simply post and say he thinks it took place earlier and then left it at that would be fine but for him shake his head for what I had written is absurd - especially when I even cited a source that teaches not all agree with this specific time that I believe.

                    Look at the big picture. You claim to be a Christian and there are others who may claim the same thing but are caught in the heresy of what the SDA's teach concerning this topic.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                      From Post #31: Rather than to simply post and say he thinks it took place earlier and then left it at that would be fine but for him shake his head for what I had written is absurd - especially when I even cited a source that teaches not all agree with this specific time that I believe.
                      I'm not actually posting anything in Post #31, Foud... it's mostly you pitching a little hissy.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I know it's not you. I wrote "From Post #31" in reference to me writing it.

                        I never asserted you wrote it.

                        Clue up.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          I know it's not you. I wrote "From Post #31" in reference to me writing it.
                          Yes, you're always looking backward.

                          I never asserted you wrote it.
                          Not only do you like being incredibly verbose, you like repeating yourself!

                          Clue up.
                          If I had had ANY idea how childish and insecure you were, I wouldn't have picked on you. My apologies.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I repeat myself because people like you need it beat into them multiple times...and with a whole lot of intensity!
                            Last edited by foudroyant; 01-29-2014, 03:29 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                              I repeat myself because people like you need it beat into them multiple times...and with a whole lot of intensity!
                              Jesus loves you, Foud, and commands you to love me.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I do.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X