ECT What is better about D'ism?

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
We've answered that too, many times. We've tried explaining to you that grace is FAR better than covenant (even if you HAD a covenant to claim with God, which you do not). But you do not have ears to hear and are an idle babbler, so I chose to answer his post, not yours.
Click to expand...





The good things of Christ's covenant are already here says the text. We are in a covenant through and in Christ not in ourselves, not in Israel the race, not in a BOC. In Christ. God even made him a covenant for the nations.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
An 'answer' is not a spitting back of a rutted doctrine. You need to answer the text. The good things (listed in those Hebs chapter) ARE ALREADY HERE. eNJOY!
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The new covenant is his grace, but what is better, the text says, is that there is no longer a party that is going to ruin it. Instead, he 'came and did His will' in the prepared body. --If the text actually means anything to you.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
No one today - Jew nor Gentile - has any biblical covenant they can appeal to with God.

Nor do they need to.

ALL are under grace and nothing else BECAUSE ALL HAVE BEEN COUNTED IN UNBELIEF. Anyone on earth can simply believe the Gospel of grace and be forgiven and justified from all things, but the Gospel is not a covenant one "claims." It's simply good news to be believed with gladness.

Christendom would have been much better off if people had relegated the word covenant to the history of Israel where it belongs and quit trying to greedily steal from God a covenant for themselves.
Click to expand...





THe nonsense of the day and its followers:
Christendom would have been much better off if people had relegated the word covenant to the history of Israel where it belongs and quit trying to greedily steal from God a covenant for themselves.




That's foolish because it was given freely. You are the most out of touch with the NT that you have ever been.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
STP never said otherwise.

STP was pointing out that "a covenant for the nations." is NOT in the Bible and is NOT the same as "a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;"
Click to expand...





The stupidity of this post is that belief again that the English version in your hand is going to solve it. You have to know the context and know what the NT says. Christ, whom you don't seem to know, came and did the things mentioned there. He could just as easily read this passage at Nazareth as the other; see for yourselves. He is causing new things to happen, v9.

The song that everyone is to sing in worship of what Christ the covenant does is for the ends of the earth. The Servant who does these things is God himself (ch 43) and is the Messiah who suffers in ch 53. It is not hard at all to see, but you are the most obstinate about this for reasons that only protect a future kingdom in Judea, which is never the interest of Christ or the NT.

God started the mission movement in ch 43 as well. You are my witnesses, twice. This get used by Christ to and about the apostles. Just like Rom 10 is saying as well, that that was the purpose intended to be accomplished in and through Israel to go to the ends of the earth.

On a minor note, the NIV goes with 'for the people' and this belongs with its obvious meaning in hebrews where his body is the one that accomplishes the sacrifice for it.

But you all are famous for blocking the obvious meaning.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
It is hilarious to me that Must would realize that grace is better and then NOT think that that is what the new covenant is!

But her teachers in D'ism are famous for fracturing where fracture should not be.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
It is hilarious to me that Must would realize that grace is better and then NOT think that that is what the new covenant is!

But her teachers in D'ism are famous for fracturing where fracture should not be.
Click to expand...

You've both mis-fired...

Either in each your conclusions on this, or in each your words on it.

If not in both...

Fact is, the Body's Mystery Grace is both different from, but not better than Israel's Prophesied Grace Covenant.

Those two are actually a case where God indeed does not make junk.

Each is different.

And each is all The Father's all, in it's own right...in His Son...by the Spirit.

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Now remember the rules here PJ: it's not about rehashing the 'right' positions. What I want to know is why is the land restoration good for anything, for anyone that is not addressed in the NHNE (to supply a NHNE without an episode of restored Israel/Judaism is the non-D'ist position).

How can a land be restored without operating Judaism? I don't think it works that way in their minds. So, if Judaism is restored, we have a credit reference problem, namely, Heb 7:18, 10:3 (everything sort of stops there...), 10:11.

So we see that the definition of better is 'efficacious' (to use a theological term). Redemptive.

Whether or not another episode of Judaistic worship happens is beside the point: what is superior about it?

(To jump the rules for a moment: it is clear from these passages what the problem of the old covenant was. that's why the new is not a 2nd chance just for Israel. The problem was it compounds, underlines the debt of sin. The new/Gospel clears it. That is both the right doctrine--and better).

The D'ists must clear up their muddled position.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Now remember the rules here PJ: it's not about rehashing the 'right' positions. What I want to know is why is the land restoration good for anything, for anyone that is not addressed in the NHNE (to supply a NHNE without an episode of restored Israel/Judaism is the non-D'ist position).

How can a land be restored without operating Judaism? I don't think it works that way in their minds. So, if Judaism is restored, we have a credit reference problem, namely, Heb 7:18, 10:3 (everything sort of stops there...), 10:11.

So we see that the definition of better is 'efficacious' (to use a theological term). Redemptive.

Whether or not another episode of Judaistic worship happens is beside the point: what is superior about it?

(To jump the rules for a moment: it is clear from these passages what the problem of the old covenant was. that's why the new is not a 2nd chance just for Israel. The problem was it compounds, underlines the debt of sin. The new/Gospel clears it. That is both the right doctrine--and better).

The D'ists must clear up their muddled position.
Click to expand...

I will restore the years the locust have eaten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top