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

[Cow Poke]

I do.

Yeah, it shows.

[Soyeong]

[JohnnyP]

You're tying the "beginning of the Church" to the beginning of the New Covenant. You're forcing them be one in the same.
Your "proof" is about the beginning of the Church, though your premise is about the Covenant.

Jesus said, "this cup is the New Testament in my Blood".... the Covenant is the same has his "Will and Testament", and with His death, it became of affect.

I am NOT disputing that "the beginning of the Church" began at Pentecost, so you're WRONG about me being "in the minority" on that.

I disagree with foudroyant's thread title claim, but is it possible the New Covenant was initiated even before his death, for those who believed all of it even before it came to pass, at the Last Supper?

Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

[Cow Poke]

I disagree with foudroyant's thread title claim, but is it possible the New Covenant was initiated even before his death, for those who believed all of it even before it came to pass, at the Last Supper?

Well, I had never considered that before... ... can't think who it was... mentioned it, but I'm going to have to give that some serious thought.

Here it is.....

Therefore I believe that the New Covenant was initiated at the last supper and completed by the Crucifixion and Pentecost.

[JohnnyP]

Well, I had never considered that before... ... can't think who it was... mentioned it, but I'm going to have to give that some serious thought.

Here it is.....

I didn't see that though I usually try to skim through threads so I'm not totally lost and redundant, so thanks for pointing it out to me. :clueless

[Cow Poke]

I didn't see that though I usually try to skim through threads so I'm not totally lost and redundant, so thanks for pointing it out to me. :clueless

No prob. I like it, though, when something makes me challenge my beliefs, or consider something I hadn't considered before, or just makes me think. That's a large part of why I'm here.

[Jedidiah]

Millions of people are caught up in this heresy.

What exactly are you calling heresy here?

[Paprika]

I'm just going to point out that the Old Covenant does not mean the Torah. Being under the New Covenant does not free us to sin.

Ftfy.

[RBerman]

It is almost universally agreed among theologians that Pentecost marks the beginning of the church as an institution (4:783, Pentecost, C.L. Feinberg).

Among certain sorts of theologians, that may be true. Among other sorts of theologians, that premise is universally rejected. Witness the testimony of the Presbyterian Church, not exactly an obscure and tiny group:

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 21: Of the Law of God
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws...

Chapter 25: Of the Church
I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.[1]

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion...


We can fairly debate whether it's correct to talk about God's people in the Old Testament as "the Church," but it's simply false to say that it's some strange minority position unheard of in Christian circles. It was the consensus position until about 100 years ago when dispensationalism with its many divisions and dichotomies became the "in thing."

[JohnnyP]

No prob. I like it, though, when something makes me challenge my beliefs, or consider something I hadn't considered before, or just makes me think. That's a large part of why I'm here.

Yeah, I still have my "pet" beliefs and I can go out full steam with them, plus my ego where I like to debate and be right all the time, but as I get older I think I am more consistently trying to find middle ground from which to start a conversation rather than a confrontation. Sometimes, sometimes not.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I still have my "pet" beliefs and I can go out full steam with them, plus my ego where I like to debate and be right all the time, but as I get older I think I am more consistently trying to find middle ground from which to start a conversation rather than a confrontation. Sometimes, sometimes not.

Yeah!

[foudroyant]

What exactly are you calling heresy here?

The SDA's do believe that if you (knowingly) do not keep the command to obey the 7th Day Sabbath you are not saved.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-li...e-sabbath.aspx

[footwasher]

Actually, no.

The understanding between God and man is not to sin, transgress law. That understanding is acknowledged and termed covenant:

Romans 2
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Why was Torah given? To increase transgressions. Abraham was sensitive and quickly realized his infraction, before Torah, which raised the bar, was given. As God's People, Israel had to be rapidly brought up to speed, even the less sensitive amongst them, to quickly realize their inadequacy and need for God. Torah was a superset of natural Law, functioning like it, but accelerated.

The Law, all versions, written on hearts of Gentiles, called the Eternal Law, written on stone tablets for Jews, called Torah, under the common label Old Covenant, was nailed to the Cross. Those in Christ are the new Adam, not under Law (Adam could theoretically steal, rape, murder and not be trangressing, as there is no transgression without the Law). Even modern penal codes understand that minors do not transgress, because they have insufficient comprehension of good and evil. As does Torah:



In nailing the Law to the Cross, Christ gave freedom to man. He was mature, accountable, but the force of the Law was removed.

Should he enjoy that law free environment, like tourists enjoy duty free shopping, or tennis stars enjoy tax free earnings? No-oooo!

Because Christ also mediated terms of empowerment. Those in Him were also freed from the body of death. In Him, what was impossible for man was possible to accomplish, because He was God. Proven by the members of the early church. They saw the giants and took them on. They sold their property and followed Christ, did what was required to be perfect. They sowed to the spirit and received eternal life, not to the flesh to receive death. They saw the Kingdom of God and inherited the Kingdom of God.

L.

The New Covenant was drawn up before the Cross, was available for participating in, but was finalised with the giving of the Holy Spirit. Being in Christ gave a third benefit, it gave you freedom from blemishes, made you perfect for sin bearing...

[Jedidiah]

The SDA's do believe that if you (knowingly) do not keep the command to obey the 7th Day Sabbath you are not saved.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-li...e-sabbath.aspx

Thanks, you had me worried.

[RBerman]

Actually, no. The understanding between God and man is not to sin, transgress law. That understanding is acknowledged and termed covenant:

Romans 2
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Why was Torah given? To increase transgressions. Abraham was sensitive and quickly realized his infraction, before Torah, which raised the bar, was given. As God's People, Israel had to be rapidly brought up to speed, even the less sensitive amongst them, to quickly realize their inadequacy and need for God. Torah was a superset of natural Law, functioning like it, but accelerated.

The Law, all versions, written on hearts of Gentiles, called the Eternal Law, written on stone tablets for Jews, called Torah, under the common label Old Covenant, was nailed to the Cross. Those in Christ are the new Adam, not under Law (Adam could theoretically steal, rape, murder and not be trangressing, as there is no transgression without the Law). Even modern penal codes understand that minors do not transgress, because they have insufficient comprehension of good and evil. As does Torah:



In nailing the Law to the Cross, Christ gave freedom to man. He was mature, accountable, but the force of the Law was removed.

Should he enjoy that law free environment, like tourists enjoy duty free shopping, or tennis stars enjoy tax free earnings? No-oooo!

Because Christ also mediated terms of empowerment. Those in Him were also freed from the body of death. In Him, what was impossible for man was possible to accomplish, because He was God. Proven by the members of the early church. They saw the giants and took them on. They sold their property and followed Christ, did what was required to be perfect. They sowed to the spirit and received eternal life, not to the flesh to receive death. They saw the Kingdom of God and inherited the Kingdom of God.

L.

The New Covenant was drawn up before the Cross, was available for participating in, but was finalised with the giving of the Holy Spirit. Being in Christ gave a third benefit, it gave you freedom from blemishes, made you perfect for sin bearing...

Actually, Soyeong has the right of it. Paul spends the second half of several of his letters reiterating various points of Torah. Contra dispensationalism, there's no hint that he does this in the spirit of, "The whole Torah has now been deactivated as a revelation of what God and man are like, and thus how man should behave; however, I am going to re-activate selected portions as follows...." The moral components of the Torah (e.g. the 2 Great Commandments, the Decalogue) were given not arbitrarily, but as a statement about the nature of man. It's not as if murder suddenly became wrong at Sinai, nor did it cease being wrong just because Jesus died on the cross. It's not as if people magically stopped needing rest one day in seven. And so on. These moral laws are eternally true and good, and so God in his goodness has explicitly revealed them to His people at various points in time, while writing them on the hearts of other men even today. According to Paul, this continuing function of the Law is one reason that all men are accountable before God for their sins. As he says in Romans 5 for instance, death comes because of sin, and sin implies a Law which has been transgressed.

Christians are not "under the Law" in that we have been freed from its curse, but we should rejoice that the Law is good and worthy of being followed, just as Jesus and Paul did.