| Author | Message | ||
| Plain Patti |
ONE GOD, ONE COVENANT, ONE SALVATION There is much said not only in SDAism but in Christendom in general about the Two Covenants of God. The prevailing theory goes something like this: God made a covenant with Israel. If they would keep His law and abide by His commands, He would be their God, and they would be His people whom He would bless throughout their generations. The Children of Israel quickly agreed, saying "All that the Lord has said, we will do." But they were weak and rebellious and proved over and over again that they were unworthy of God's blessings. Therefore, God realized that there was a problem with the original covenant, AKA the Old Covenant, which He had made with Israel, and decided to revise it. He sent His Son into the world to pay the penalty for man's disobedience and to give His indwelling power to His people to write His law in their hearts and enable them to lead holy lives. The Old Covenant was nailed to the cross; no longer was man under the legalism of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant of salvation in Christ delivered him from the penalty of the law. There are various variations (various variations?? :) ) on this one theme, some of them follow the reformed theology, some retain legalistic premises to varying :) degrees. I was asked once if I were a New Covenant believer. I know what I understood as New Covenant, but there are so many labels and catch-words floating around that I felt I had to delve deeper into the "Covenants." I have come to the conclusion that there is, always was, only ONE COVENANT. God's intention, always, was for man to live in perfect harmony to His will. Man was created to serve God, and to bring honor to his Creator. Man chose, instead, to disobey God and to bring upon himself and all of his descendants the penalties of sin. The immediate result of sin was separation from God. Sin is consumed in the presence of a holy God. Instead of slaying man, for some reason, God chose instead to withdraw His holy presence. Absence from Lifegiver brings death. Man began to die immediately. God, of course, had foreseen this and had already devised a plan with which to bring man back to the presence of God. Jesus would redeem man and restore him to his original state of living in God's presence. God chose Abraham as the Father of His people. Abraham's seed were to be the conduit by which God's presence would be restored to the world. But Abraham's seed, being descendants of Adam, were flighty, irresponsible, and wicked. God gave them the Decalogue and other laws at Sinai not only to help govern them, but, as Paul says, to reveal to them how sinful they really were. God said, "You must do these things. If you do, I will bless you throughout your generations." And the children of Israel said, probably without giving it too much thought, "Of course, Lord. We will do it all." And just how long did they keep this vow? About as long as it took to go back to their tents. Repeatedly throughout the Old Testament, God asks for obedience and gets nothing but rebellion. Still, He keeps repeating His promises to the faithful of Abraham's seed. God gives the sanctuary service to the children of Israel as an object lesson, to show the plan of salvation, the forgiveness of sin, and to house the very presence of God on earth. When the fullness of time had come, He sends forth His Son. Jesus came to earth in human form, in the sinless perfection of the first Adam. He fulfilled the covenant that God had made with Israel. He truly did "all that the Lord has said." Then, He offered Himself as the atonement for the sin of the world. When Jesus speaks of doing the work of God, He speaks of believing on the One Whom God has sent. The sinner who believes in Christ is forgiven of his sinfulness and stands as perfectly righteous in the sight of God. My premise: There is, and has always been, only one way to gain salvation, or restoration to the presence of God. First, man has to be forgiven of all of his sin. Practically all self-professed Christians are in agreement that Jesus Christ made this possible on Calvary. Next, man must offer perfect obedience to all of God's commands. This is where Christ-centered theology and believer-centered theology split. Christ-centered theology teaches that nothing less than perfect obedience will suffice, as sin is consumed by the holiness of the presence of God; and that man in his sinful flesh, even inspired by the Holy Spirit, is incapable of producing anything but filthy rags righteousness. Believer-centered theology teaches that man can and must, with the power of the Holy Spirit, keep the law. Christ offers "mere" forgivenes, then the Holy Spirit begins to make us acceptable to God in ourselves. However, people who espouse such a theology are very reluctant to claim that they have become acceptable to God, and, when pressed, they cannot offer an example of anyone in history who has. There is, and always was, only one covenant. We must do all that the Lord says we must do. Anything less is sin, death, and damnation. There are no degrees of righteousness. It is an all-or-nothing situation: one is either perfect, or damned. The New Testament presents the fulfillment of the Covenant, and the only way that we can be saved. God has not changed. In order to be restored to His presence, we must filfill the law to perfection. There is only one hope, one way for sinful humans to do this: we must believe in the One who has fulfilled all things as our Substitute and Surety. Christ offers us His robe of perfect obedience to all who will trust in His saving grace. We can do nothing else toward our salvation but to believe in the One Who is the only true Remnant, the only faithful One of Abraham's seed. All promises in the Bible were made to the Remnant of the seed of Abraham. All promises were made to those who kept the Covenant. What does this mean to us? All promises were made to Christ. (Galatians 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.) We can have no part of these promises if we are not in Christ. It is only in Christ that we can claim the promises of God. Accordingly, if we are in Christ, we have all of the promises of God. One Covenant--perfect obedience to the will of God; one fulfillment--Jesus Christ; one salvation--accepting substitutionary work of the only Faithful One. | ||
| Lynn W |
Right on, Patti. | ||
| Bill Twisse |
The New Covenant--Introduction "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people . . . For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Heb. 8:10,12 KJV This passage describing a new covenant is very familiar to us. What is the usual interpretation that is given? 1. The promise in verse 12 is of justification. 2. The promise in verse 10 is of regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. 3. God will fulfill verse 12 as soon as we have faith in Christ. From that point on he will begin to fulfill all of the things promised in verse 10, which will be completed at the resurrection. 4. Simply believe and we will partake of these promises. This is a common 'evangelical' interpretation. Since the gospel of the New Testament is abundantly clear on the matter of justification by faith without works of law, it may seem reasonable to assume that fulfillment of the New Covenant is 'conditional' upon faith. Very simple, right? The reasoning goes like this: God has made all the provisions for salvation in the atonement of Christ. If we will only believe and 'let him' be our Saviour, he will respond and fulfill all of the covenant promises made in Jeremiah and Hebrews. But is the above interpretation correct? Is it possible that we could have missed the real scope of God's laws written in the mind and heart? Yes. I know that I personally missed it for many years. The problem with a 'conditional' interpretation is the failure to recognize that God's covenants are wholly promissory. Unless God states a condition that must be fulfilled by the other party, in order to make the covenant operational, there is no possibility of his covenant being broken. The only covenant made with this type of condition is the one at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:5,6). Some interpreters also see a 'covenant' of this sort made with Adam--but that is speculative and does not have an indisputable foundation in scripture. Even the covenant of promise made with Abraham (with circumcision as the sign) was wholly promissory. God made this covenant in Genesis 15, even though the sign of circumcision was not established until many years later in Genesis 17. Note in Gen. 15:17,18 that only God passed between the pieces of the sacrifice. This covenant was not an 'agreement' after the form of most ancient treaties. The only issue was the fulfillment of God's word ('know for certain'--verses 13-16) and the absolute impossibility of history taking a different course than what he had stated. In a similar fashion, ALL of the commandments that God has given in the New Covenant are written on the heart--by his promised Holy Spirit alone. This is especially true of faith, our only assurance of justification and the supreme work and commandment of God (John 6:29, I John 3:23). God has elected a people and he will certainly save all of them, regardless of the objections of many who want the comfortable possibility (loved by the flesh) of 'opting out.' In the next installment, we will begin to explore the 10 (at least) elements of the Old Covenant that the New Covenant is 'not' ("not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers"--Heb. 8:9). For nearly all of the Christian era, many who claim to be God's messengers have attempted to dim the 'more glorious' light of the gospel (2 Cor. 3) with these 10 laws. In Christ's grace, Twisse | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Excellent work, Bill! | ||
| Steve |
Bill, Excellent stuff. Looking forward to more. Understanding the New Covenant has been "new" for me, but this information is completely new. I want to partake of all God has promised me. I also want to explore the issue of faith as being promissory. It looks as though you're going to include that issue in this discussion. God Bless, Steve | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Covenant, part I "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." (Hebrews 8:9 KJV) In the introductory study, we examined that only one of God's covenants was an 'agreement' between two parties--after the manner of ancient treaties. The above words can be spoken only of the covenant made at Sinai. All of the other covenants of God are wholly promissory. In reference to these covenants, the words 'they continued not in My covenant' are an impossibility. God alone fulfills the conditions of the promissory covenants. See Galatians 3:15-29. In contemplating the facts about covenant, we see that it is impossible for God to do certain things. He cannot lie, he cannot fail, he cannot deny himself, he cannot sin. This illustrates the utter futility of the modern 'evangelical' theology of paradox, which proposes that almost any proposition is true to some extent. The Bible proposes that certain ideas are true and opposite ideas are false. Any apparent 'paradoxes' in the scriptures are to be resolved with much study, prayer, and reliance upon the Holy Spirit. The theme of Hebrews 8:6-13 is the contrast between the Sinai covenant and the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31. In order to focus on what the New Covenant is, it is fruitful to examine all of the things that it is not: "not according to the covenant." All of the established denominations try and impose one or more of these false requirements from the Old Covenant on New Covenant believers. Don't go for it! 1. The New Covenant is not Sabbatarian. Since there are so many laws attached to the covenant with Israel, it is easy to overlook the fact that it did not merely require the Sabbath to be kept: it was the Sabbath! (Ex. 31:16, 34:28; Deut. 4:13, Isa. 56:4-6). It was in fact the decalogue, however, not all of the 10 commandments were of equal force. The nine moral commands were a hedge around the 'seal' of the Sabbath. That is why the words 'covenant' and 'Sabbath' are used interchangeably--in the same way that 'covenant' and '10 commandments' are so used. When the New Testament says that the law-covenant is ended (2 Cor. 3, Gal. 3 & 4, Eph. 2:14-16, Col. 2:13-17, Heb. 10:1), it is saying that the Sabbath is ended! Many persons will argue that in doing away with the Sabbath, we are abolishing the other commandments. But it must be emphasized that the nine were simply a 'hedge' around the seal of the covenant-the fourth commandment. Disassociated from the law-covenant, the nine are still are applicable to us as laws to be written in the heart. In spite of this clear teaching of God's word, the centuries of Christendom are filled with continued attempts to impose first-day or seventh-day sabbatarianism upon believers. The whole Reformed movement has been devoted to a confessional and legalistic emphasis on Sunday as the Sabbath. We can't afford to compromise the implications of the gospel by allowing ANY form of sabbatarianism to be imposed upon us. Let us not raise again the 'wall of hostility' that separated the Jews from the nations. The only Sabbath in the grace-covenant is Jesus and his everlasting rest! (Col. 2:17, Heb.4:9,10) Coming up as time permits: 2. The New Covenant ends the covenant of circumcision. 3. The New Covenant has no earthly temple. 4. The New Covenant has no earthly priesthood. 5. The New Covenant has no tithe. and five more beyond that. --Twisse | ||
| Maryann |
Hey Bill, Don't stop till you post part 10! I'm so new to the Bible of God rather than the Bible interpreted by man (woman) that anything you post is valuable to me. Besides that, if it's valuable to me, it's valuable to an untold visible and un-visable audience. Keep on posting! :-) Maryann | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Yes, Bill, keep on posting. | ||
| Colleentinker |
BillóI'm looking forward to reading more. I'd like to say, though, that "paradox" is not necessarily a form of theology devised to explain away apparent contradictions. Paradox can also be a statement of reality. For example, God is both transcendent and immanent. We have to lose our lives to save them. These realities appear to be contradictory, but they are both completely true. "Paradox" in these cases is not a way of explaining biblical contradictions; it's a way of explaining reality. I suspect that if we were not limited by the three dimensions of a sin-shattered planet, the paradoxes we encounter would not be paradoxes at all; the big picture would be clear to us. But because we are limited, we have to say that certain apparent contradictions are equally true. These are paradoxes. Of course we can "explain" these things theologically, but our human explanations do not remove the fact that these "contradictions" remain. Truth is spiritually discerned, not intellectually discerned. I believe that the Holy Spirit enlightens our intellects when he gives life to our souls, and our understanding expands when we receive the mind of Christ. But here again we're approaching paradox! Praising God for truth bigger than we are, Colleen | ||
| Bruce H |
Bill ---We can't afford to compromise the implications of the gospel by allowing ANY form of sabbatarianism to be imposed upon us. Let us not raise again the 'wall of hostility' that separated the Jews from the nations. The only Sabbath in the grace-covenant is Jesus and his everlasting rest! (Col. 2:17, Heb.4:9,10) AMEN!!!!!!! I love that Bill Bruce Heinrich | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
THERE ARE SEVEN MAJOR COVENANTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Hey, Bill, I just discovered that the NIV Study Bible has a great covenant chart on page 19. Iíll outline it here to see what you think about it. 1. COVENANT OF NOAH (Genesis 9:8-17). ROYAL GRANT TYPE made with ìrighteousî Noah and his descendants [that includes you and me, folks!] and every living thing on earth. UNCONDITIONAL divine promise never to destroy all earthly life with some natural catastrophe. The SIGN: THE RAINBOW IN THE STORM CLOUD. 2. COVENANT OF ABRAHAM PART A (Genesis 15:9-21). ROYAL (land) GRANT TYPE made with ìrighteousî Abram and to his descendants (verse 16). UNCONDITIONAL divine promise to fulfill the grant of the land; a self-maledictory (self-cursing) oath symbolically enacted it (verse 17). 3. COVENANT OF ABRAHAM PART B (Genesis 17). SUZERAIN-VASSEL TYPE made with Abraham as patriarchal head of his household. CONDITIONAL divine pledge to be Abrahamís God and the God of his descendants. The CONDITION: Total consecration to the Lord as symbolized by CIRCUMCISION. 4. COVENANT OF SINAI OR HOREB (Exodus 19-24). SUZERAIN-VASSEL TYPE made with Israel as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and as the people the Lord has redeemed from bondage to an earthly power. CONDITIONAL divine pledge to be Israelís God (Protector, Guarantor of her blessed destiny). The CONDITION: Israelís total consecration to the Lord as his people (his kingdom) who live by his rule and serve his purposes in history. 5. COVENANT OF DAVID (2 Samuel 7:5-16). ROYAL GRANT TYPE made with faithful King David after his devotion to God as Israelís king and the Lordís anointed vassal had come to special expression (verse 2). UNCONDITIONAL divine promise to establish and maintain the Davidís dynasty on the throne of Israel to provide her forever with a goodly king like David and through that dynasty to do for her what he had done through David. And that was to bring her into rest in the Promised Land (1 Kings 4:20-21, 1 Kings 5:3-4). 6. NEW COVENANT (Jeremiah 31:31-34). ROYAL GRANT TYPE promised to rebellious Israel as she is about to be expelled from the Promised Land in actualization of the most severe covenant curse (Leviticus 16:27-39, Deuteronomy 28:36-27, Deuteronomy 45-68). UNCONDITIONAL divine promise to UNFAITHFUL Israel to forgive her sins and establish his relationship with her on a new basis by writing his law ìon their hearts.î A COVENANT OF PURE GRACE!! What do you think about it, Bill? (I think youíre doing a great job with these covenants that are so difficult for us Adventists and former Adventists to figure out.) Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone, Jude | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Jude, You said: "I just discovered that the NIV Study Bible has a great covenant chart on page 19. Iíll outline it here to see what you think about it." Speaking for myself, when I was still in the SDA Church and for some years there after, I thought that I knew so much truth that I wouldn't even have lowered myself to look at what some Bible had in some chart! SDAism had put a lot of religious pride me, because I was under "the special light". Wow, did I get a wake up after a few years in the world and discovered that I knew NOTHING! Have you or anyone else felt that way? That thought just knocked me over as I read your post, so I just had to share it with you. Maryann :-) | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Ooops. I left one out. Here it is: 5. COVENANT OF PHINEAS(Numbers 25:10-13). ROYAL GRANT TYPE made with the zealous priest Phinehas. UNCONDITIONAL divine promise to maintain the family of Phinehas in a "lasting priesthood." This is implicitly a pledge to Israel to provide her forever with a faithful priesthood. Hi, Maryann, Thanks for that comment. You're learning all the time, aren't you? Jude | ||
| Steve |
Maryann, I agree with your thought. I also felt that I didn't need to look in any commentaries that "other" Christians had written. HOW ARROGANT! I realize now that some great and learned people have put years into studying the things that Jude has pointed out from the NIV Study Bible, as well as many other things from Scripture. I can't wait until I get my hands on a good Study Bible. Now that I'm where I'm at theologically, I'm excited about learning more about what other Christians have learned and want to share with the rest of us. Steve | ||
| Maryann |
Hi Steve, Those tape sets are are real "SDA pride killers". There is so much info on them! Happy listening.....Maryann | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Hi to all. Wow, you have been very busy interacting since I left yesterday. All of you guys are great! I have never encountered such a non-judgmental spirit on a bulletin board. Colleen, on the theology of paradox, I am referring to a particular method of dealing with truth--known as the inductive method. The definition of the word paradox is confusing: the dictionaries can't even agree! All I know is that theologians of past centuries didn't need the paradoxical model to explain truth. Since it has come into major use in the last century, we have seen an explosive growth in the following viewpoints in evangelicalism: 1. Subjective justification (the notion that one is declared righteous before God through an internal transformation). Also, extreme belief in free-will and denial of the bondage of the will. The end of historic Reformation soteriology. 2. The ability of Christ as man to commit sin. The end of historic Christology. 3. Dispensational prophecy. The death of the historic Christian perspective on the seriousness of the impending end of all things. Many now believe that certain individuals (especialy Jews) have another chance to be saved after Jesus returns. 4. The necessity of experiencing signs and wonders in order to be strong in faith. 5. Steps, methods, gimmicks, secrets of success. 6. Censorship of those who are interested in sound theology and refuse to accept the 'party line.' I could go on. Of course, that doesn't mean that all important NT truth was recovered in past centuries. I don't believe that we have even begun to recover the ecclesiology of the apostles--their doctrine of the people of God. It has been too dwarfed by churchianity for 1900 years. Two recent works that I'm very impressed with are Dr. Robert Morey's book on the Trinity and Dr. Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology (both recently published). I have met and spoken with both men. Each is very enlightening on how the deductive method (historical) of interpreting truth and scripture is on its way out; being replaced in the modernistic era by the inductive method. The new method is taught in almost all of the seminaries. This is true of both liberalism and conservative evangelicalism. Well, our perspectives may differ on this one. I don't think that we have to remain accepting of what appears to be a paradox--if scripture shows us a clear way out. I'm sure you don't either. On spiritual vs. intellectual, well, I would not put it that way. When we are born from above, God's spirit enlightens our minds and his truth becomes reasonable to us. It is not such to the natural mind loving this world's wisdom, for sure. It is only after we have started accepting God's propositions that have come to us through revelation. I myself used the paradoxical model to teach until about 4 years ago, not knowing what the implications of it were. So what I'm saying is a recent development in my thinking. Well, I'm glad so many of you are studying the covenants. There should be much enlightenment coming soon for each of us! --Twisse | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Covenant, part II 2. The New Covenant ends the covenant of circumcision. "And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed earlier by God in Christ cannot be annulled by the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, so as to make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. For what then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels through the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator for one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should then have come by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, being shut apart from the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Therefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:17-27 KJV) In the last study we examined the end of the law or sabbatarian covenant. As outlined in the above passage, the purpose of that covenant was to shut people away from faith by plunging them into sin. It was not to bring about faith. For the non-elect who entered into the law-covenant, their breaking it was the end of God's purposes toward them. They perished forever in their sins and Hebrews is clear that their damnation is a warning to all future generations. For the righteous in that era, it was an administration of grace only in the preparatory sense-as a schoolmaster. So how were people saved before the coming of Christ and the gospel? Paul makes it clear that the promise came before the law and the law could not nullify it. So the elect of God in pre-Christian times were saved under the covenants of promise, which administered the same grace that would finally be revealed in the glory of the new and everlasting covenant. In the ultimate reality, now that Christ has come, all of the people of God are saved within the same New Covenant of grace. The promise of the Abrahamic covenant has been fulfilled, filled-full, and swallowed up in the coming of 'faith' and all that it implies. It is interesting (and important) to note that circumcision was originally the sign of the promise-not the law. It was given and commanded as a sign to future generations in Genesis 17, to confirm the promissory covenant that God ratified by himself in Genesis 15. The very fact of how circumcision was introduced tells us much about God's sovereignty and how his word never fails. When God first told Abraham about it, the response was that he 'laughed to himself' (verse 17). He doubted the fulfillment of God's promise. But he still hastened to obey the command to circumcise. This involved significant pain for himself and others. What can be learned from this incident? God always puts his commandments in the hearts of his elect. Even if his people commit serious sin, it doesn't cancel the deep-rooted transformation that has taken place by the work of the Holy Spirit. So why does Paul make so much out of the end of circumcision? One reason is because Judaism had equated it with taking the 'yoke' of the entire law. However, we are mistaken if we leave it at that. The rabbinic position on this matter was extra-biblical. The Old Testament is very clear that the Sabbath, not circumcision, was the sign of the law-covenant. In spite of this fact the Jewish teachers had come to confuse the promise with the law. The real issue in the end of circumcision is whether the promise has been fulfilled. Has the Messiah come or do we look for another? Has God completed what he promised to Abraham-in the creation of a new people of faith by the Holy Sprit? If we continue to make circumcision a legal and religious requirement, we are denying these realities. Although the history of Christianity is laden with attempts to bring the Saturday sabbath, dietary laws, & even civic laws of the law-covenant into the new; Paul's statements about circumcision are explicit enough that no one (except those who deny Paul's authority) would be crazy enough to try introducing it. That is, literally. But have people tried to slip it in some other way? Most definitely, yes. Just as the Sunday Sabbath was introduced to replace Saturday, a number of views and practices of water baptism have been introduced to replace circumcision. All of these externals which require the observance of a day or a particular administration of water are in reality a return to the old letter. The letter kills but the spirit gives life. Water baptism is, though commanded by Christ, nowhere called a covenant or covenant sign in the New Testament. It is critical to note that God has always made the external sign of each covenant specific (Noah-rainbow, Abraham-circumcision, Sinai-decalogue, David-throne, New-wine). I personally believe that the sign of the sacrifice was also a promissory covenant, from Adam forward. But persons have tried to introduce a covenant of baptism, which is really a covenant of circumcision in disguise, for almost the entire Christian era. Well, what does the Bible have to say about it? "And ye are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power, and in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Ye are buried with Him in baptism, wherein ye also are risen with Him through the faith in the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us. He took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; and having despoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." (Colossians 2:10-15 KJV) This is the passage most often cited to introduce water baptism as a new covenant of circumcision. Basically, the logic is that God's promise to Abraham and the sign of circumcision is replaced with God's promise to 'the church' and the sign of baptism. But that is the exact opposite of what Paul is saying here! The handwriting of ALL the ordinances is blotted out. What a glorious passage and what a disappointing explanation of such tremendous realities! The emphasis is not on promise but fulfillment of the promise. The circumcision and baptism in this passage are realities that have become complete in Christ and the Holy Sprit quickening us with faith in Him. The 'one baptism for the remission of sins' in the New Testament is that of the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ. It is not the water of the Nicene Creed. Christian water baptism, however it is practiced today, was originally commanded as a testimony to the realities of the gospel. What a mess of things has been made by human teachers since then! Most all of us have been taught that baptism is our covenant with God. The adult submersionists are just as guilty of this as those who dab infants. It is simply a matter of whether you want Romans 6 fundamentalism or Colossians 2 fundamentalism. Both passages are talking about the gospel reality of baptism and both have been twisted to refer to the letter instead of the spirit. Just as Christ is our Sabbath, he is also our circumcision. Don't try and bring either observance into the New Covenant, in any form! The letter is forever abolished. There are many other aspects of former covenants that do not belong in the New and everlasting Covenant of grace. Still to come: 3. The New Covenant has no earthly temple. 4. The New Covenant has no earthly priesthood. 5. The New Covenant has no tithe. 6. The New Covenant has no continuing sacrifice. and four more beyond that. --Twisse | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Excellent work, Bill. Convincing! | ||
| Colleentinker |
Interesting study, Bill. I agree with your conclusions about circumcision. The reason it can no longer be required is that Jesus now bears the physical marks of belonging on HIS body. Just as he fulfilled everything else in the Old Testament, he fulfilled the physical sacrifice which the OT foretold. Believers no longer have to physically mark themselves to identify with the promised death of Messiah. I also agree that baptism is not a covenant between God and his people. It is absolutely unrelated to salvation. It is an act symbolizing commitment to Jesus. Water baptism, however, is commanded by Jesus. It is not an ordinance against us; it is not part of the law; it was simply one of Jesus' final admonitions to his apsotles: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This is clearly not referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is every believer's new birthright. This is a command to baptize believers into the Trinity. Baptism is NOT a covenant. It is not an ordinance against us as the law was. It is also not required for salvation. Baptism is not part of the symbolism fulfilled by Jesus. Jesus asked his disciples to baptise, and Luke (in Acts) and Paul repeadtedly admonished believers to be baptised. Baptism is not a work which we must do as part of the slavation process. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is promised as the seal to everyone who believes. Water baptism is like the wedding ceremonyóit's the external confirmation of the already existing relationship. Baptism does not replace circumcision; it is not a parallel sign. Circumcision was a command; it was the act which a Gentile had to perform in order to become part of the Jewish community. Baptism, on the other hand, is not a requirement. It is the outward demonstration of our commitment. It is not required in order for us to be part of the church; but it is an act of commitment which Jesus himself asked us to do. It is an act demonstrating our belief in the Trinity and our acceptance of Jesus' death and resurrection. Water baptism is not a requirement of the covenant of grace. But it is a sign of our acceptance and commitment. The NT commands to "repent and be baptized" refer to water baptism. Baptism by the Holy Spirit is not a command; it is a promise. | ||
| Bill Twisse |
Good comments, Colleen. In case I didn't make it clear, I do not reject the practice of NT water baptism as commanded by Christ. I do reject it as a substitute for the primary NT baptism--that of the Holy Spirit uniting us to the realities of Christ's death & resurrection. I am against making it into a 'new circumcision' which is what happened with its undue elevation to covenant status. In addition, because the intent of the water is testimony, I do not believe it can be made into a watershed issue with regard to the mode & subjects. Let each person follow conscience & conviction--wherever they are currently in their thinking. There is some aspect of divine truth portrayed in all of the various practices of administering water. As long as the true gospel is confessed. If I were wanting a baptism today, I would ask to pass through a waterfall. --Twisse |
