The OT books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

[FlimFlamboyant]

"I'm a New Testament saint! I follow the commandments of Jesus in the Gospels!"

I'll make a gross, and not entirely accurate generalization here, and say that most people believe this about themselves. But would a New Testamant saint gather his commandments from the Old Testament? Are those first four books in the "New Testament" really where the publishers claim they are?

Let me ask you this. Did God write that little page to the left of Matthew chapter 1? What's the Greek for that phrase "The New Testament"? It doesn't exist, does it? God didn't really write that, did He? So who put it there? Shouldn't we let the actual words of God tell us where those books belong? Let's do so, and see where it is that they really belong.

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

When Jesus was stating this, had that blood been shed as of yet? Nope.

Heb 9:15-16 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

When did the testator die? Before, or after all of those red letters in your Bible were spoken?

Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Was the New Testament of force while Jesus was here on earth? Did the events described in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John take place during a time in which the New Testament was active? Are those four books really New Testament books?

Just something to think about.

[Piebald]

:shrug:

[Hitch]

Scofield smiles.

H

[Rubia Warren]

:huh:

[Hitch]

John 4:39
39 And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
(KJV)

GASP! How can this be?

If this woman and ',many of the Samaritans of that city believed'. because of what JESUS said...

The drivel piped up by FF and others is false doctrine. And this is taken fom FF's own best source. Iether we have JESUS viloating his mission or we have a a lot of cultic prattle better suited to lining bird cages. I'll stick with Jesus .

Hitch

[FlimFlamboyant]

Thanks, Hitch. Would you now care to directly address the scriptures and questions presented?

[Woman]

we have a a lot of cultic prattle better suited to lining bird cages.

Which cult would that be?

:huh:

[Hitch]

Today @ 04:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

Which cult would that be?

:huh: The cult that teaches the Gospels are not church property.

Can you imagine a christian teacher telling his Sunday School class that not a single word utterred by Jesus Christ is directly applicable to the church? Preposterous.

But thats not enough . These same folks relegate the words of Pete , James , jude and the writer of Hebrews to that same second class status.

Take care


Hitch

Hitch

[Hitch]

Thanks, Hitch. Would you now care to directly address the scriptures and questions presented?

Sure, if you'll tell me if Jesus was the Savior only after the cross or before as well.


Hitch

The quote from john was meant for another thread but since it was one of FFs as well I'll leave it on.

[FlimFlamboyant]

Why, I would be happy to. Jesus is the savior of every stinkin' human being from Genesis to Revelation! Whether you're a kingdom saint, or a member of the Body of Christ, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Whether you're an OT Jew, or a Gentile in the Body of Christ; whether you believed on the gospel of the kingdom, or the gospel of the grace of God (during their appropriate times of relevance, of course :), that blood is no less applicable in either case. The means by which we were justified (the blood of Christ) doesn't hinge at all upon our calling, our purpose, or our eventual destination, and contrary to popular belief, I don't think any dispensationalist would tell you any differently.

[Xmansmommy]

Can Hitch come out and play???? :brow:

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 08:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60534#post60534)
Xmansmommy:

Can Hitch come out and play???? :brow: I will wait for this question to be answered. FFs noisy answer does not address this issue.

Sure, if you'll tell me if Jesus was the Savior only after the cross or before as well.

Hitch

[FlimFlamboyant]

Sorry, I'm all out of crayons.

[yxboom]

:lol:

Looks like Hitch hasn't been told that you don't break other people's crayons cause you can't color in the lines.

[Hitch]

Sure, if you'll tell me if Jesus was the Savior only after the cross or before as well

Gee Boom rather than more nonsense that only plays in your cult try something new . Just answer the question. Come on Boom you can do it. Try it by yourself but go ahead and get some help if you really need to.

And if you dont ,,well its been posted three times., and its not as though anyone takes this trash seriously.

Ya know with two MODs and a FlimFlam and none of you can answer it wont look good. LMBO

Hitch

[smilax]

04-06-2003 @ 10:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=56957#post56957)
FlimFlamboyant:
But would a New Testamant saint gather his commandments from the Old Testament?Acts xxiv, 14: "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."

(Returns to hibernation...)

[FlimFlamboyant]

Do you believe all of the commandments in book of Leviticus? Sure you do. Now, do you follow them all? Of course not. Now, again, my original question: Do you get your commandments from the OT? There's a difference.

[joelkaki]

FF, let me ask you this question. Would you agree, that if God gave a command, and did not ever repeal that command, it still applies?


Joel

[Apollos]

FF -

Due to time restraints, I may not be able always answer in a timely manner, but I will answer. I have been wanting to try this "teaching" out for some time now.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John are a part of that which we know as the New Covenant.

When did the testator die? Before, or after all of those red letters in your Bible were spoken?

Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Let me ask you – WHEN is a testament WRITTEN ??

Is a testament written BEFORE of AFTER the “testator” dies ????????????

Just something to think about !!

:deal:

[Jaltus]

I don't have red letters in my Bible, for all the words contained therein are equally God's very Word.

[Socrates]

I totally support Jaltus on this! :thumb:

[John Reece]

Me too :smile: .

:thumb:

[Xmansmommy]

Yesterday @ 05:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65336#post65336)
Apollos:

FF -

Due to time restraints, I may not be able always answer in a timely manner, but I will answer. I have been wanting to try this "teaching" out for some time now.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John are a part of that which we know as the New Covenant.



Let me ask you – WHEN is a testament WRITTEN ??

Is a testament written BEFORE of AFTER the “testator” dies ????????????

Just something to think about !!

:deal:

Apollos,
If you don't mind me asking when did the old Covenant end and the new Covenant begin?

[Apollos]

X-mom-

Thankx for your note and question...

I would say that the the NT was validated by the death of Jesus upon the cross, and that this effectively ended the OT at that point - it was "nailed to the cross".

But as you must be well aware, all last wills & testaments must be administered. Fifty days after the resurrection of Christ, the 12 Apostles began to administer the last will & testament of Christ on that Pentecost Sunday as recorded by Luke in Acts 2.

Will you answer a question for me ??

Have you ever known anyone to reveal the contents of their last will & testament (in part or in totality) BEFORE their death ???

I have!

[Xmansmommy]

Apollos,
Thanks for your response. I will certainly try to answer a question for you. :xmm:

Heb:8:13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

When was this passage written and when did/will the old covenant pass away?

Grace and peace,
Linda

[Apollos]

X-mom -

Hello again.

Was that an answer to the question I asked you??

You just asked me another question - and it was not related to what I had asked you.

Let's stop the posturing and get more to the point.

Now if you would - answer my last question in reference to - Can all or part of a last will & testament be made known BEFORE the death of the testator??

Then I will answer you last question about when Hebrews was written.

[Xmansmommy]

Apollos,
My apologies, but I wasn't aware you asked me a question other than asking me if I would answer a question for you. :huh: Which I did answer. :xmm:

Now if you would - answer my last question in reference to - Can all or part of a last will & testament be made known BEFORE the death of the testator??

I imagine so. Can it be implemented however, no. Hope that answers your question.

But for Grace,
Linda

[Apollos]

X-mom -

Very good! Thankx for the reply.

Hebrews was written beore the destruction of Jerusalem (70AD), I believe by Paul, in about 63AD.

And once again, the OT "was nailed to the cross" - approx. 30AD.

Now, where are we headed ? :huh:

(And what happened to FF ???)

[Gavin]

how do those of you who hold the Pauline authorship of Hebrews account for the thematic and stylistic differences between it and other Pauline epistles?

sincerely,
Gavin

[Xmansmommy]

Today @ 02:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67985#post67985)
Apollos:

X-mom -

Very good! Thankx for the reply.

Hebrews was written beore the destruction of Jerusalem (70AD), I believe by Paul, in about 63AD.

And once again, the OT "was nailed to the cross" - approx. 30AD.

Now, where are we headed ? :huh:

(And what happened to FF ???)

Apollos, if Hebrews was written approx. 63 AD and the OT was nailed to the cross approx. 30 AD how is it possible the writter of Hebrews could say....

Heb:8:13: In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. ....???? :huh:...apparently the old Covenant had not vanished away yet when Hebrews was written. Go figure!

[Xmansmommy]

Great question Gavin! I haven't studied this issue so I'll leave that for others who have. I'll also enjoy their comments. :thumb:

[Apollos]

X-mom-

The Hebrew writer quotes Jeremiah from about 600 years earlier. It seems that in the mind of God the OT was already obsolete through the plan the He had in mind, and it was just a matter of time. In particular, the forgiveness of sins was in mind - somehting the OLD never could afford the people of God.

The language used (I have not looked up the tenses) indicates that the OT used vanishing away - it was obsolete. If you want to say that it took 30 years for it to "wax old" and come to a point of finally vanishing is fine I guess. There are still people today who try to worship and serve God through the old covenant, not realizing their error. So even in this sense, the OT still has not "vanished" away, being perpetuated by those who would attempt to be justified by "the law" today.

It is shame that these people do not realize that God has a NEW covenant for ALL to be justified before Him, made possible by the blood of Jeuss Christ. A NEW covenant not just with the Jews, but for ALL people everywhere!!

But when the NEW covenant was ratified by Christ's blood at the cross, the OLD was - well, OLD !! That people continue to follow the OLD in error does not change the facts that God presents to us. "I will make a new covenant..."

[Apollos]

how do those of you who hold the Pauline authorship of Hebrews account for the thematic and stylistic differences between it and other Pauline epistles?

What a sweepingly generic statement. I don't know that I agree that there are any (yet).

What are those "differences" Gavin ???

[FlimFlamboyant]

Apollos; there is information concerning the New Testament even well before the four Gospels, yes, I realize this. Jeremiah 31, for example. But the actual events described took place during a time that falls under that old covenant program. So to make a blanket statement and say that we're to follow every command Jesus spoke in those 4 gospels isn't necessarily correct if they fall within the context of a program that's no longer in operation. Remember, Christ on many occasions commanded his disciples to do specific things not at some point in the future, but right there and then. Let me show you a couple of examples.

Mat 23:2-3 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: (3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the scribes and Pharisees were bidding them to follow the law of Moses, is it? And yet here is Jesus, commanding people to do their bidding (even if they were hypocrites).

Mat 8:4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Are these commandments that you observe today? I know I don't. This is basically all there is to my point. To say "I follow the commandments of Jesus" isn't a terribly accurate statement when we consider that we are in fact NOT following many commandments that he emphasized.

[Hitch]

Are these commandments that you observe today? I know I don't.

Christians still believe stealing is not a good thing. Believers also frown on adultery, idol worship , refusing to pay hired help,, secretly moving property markers, the use of fradulent measures and a host of other OT based prohibitions.

You have no legs and no point, and appearnely no answer to my question from early in this thread.

H

[FlimFlamboyant]

Nice dodge, Hitch... Now how about addressing the two specific commandments that I listed?

[Hitch]

Sure, if you'll tell me if Jesus was the Savior only after the cross or before as well

Gee Boom rather than more nonsense that only plays in your cult try something new . Just answer the question. Come on Boom you can do it. Try it by yourself but go ahead and get some help if you really need to.

And if you dont ,,well its been posted three times., and its not as though anyone takes this trash seriously.

Ya know with two MODs and a FlimFlam and none of you can answer it wont look good. LMBO

Hitch


Editorial correction; this is the fourth time

[FlimFlamboyant]

Dodge #2? This question has already been answered. Playing dumb isn't going to change that. I don't see anyone else asking for clarification as to what I meant in my response to that question.

[Hitch]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71311#post71311)
FlimFlamboyant:

Dodge #2? This question has already been answered. Playing dumb isn't going to change that. I don't see anyone else asking for clarification as to what I meant in my response to that question. I missed it completely. How about reposting or tell me the post number.

[Hitch]

Sure, if you'll tell me if Jesus was the Savior only after the cross or before as well

Was this question too vague?

I'll re-phrase,

Was Jesus the Savior when he cleared the Temple as recorded in Mark 11;15?


Hitch

[Darth Xena]

04-14-2003 @ 11:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67105#post67105)
Xmansmommy:

Apollos,
Thanks for your response. I will certainly try to answer a question for you. :xmm:



When was this passage written and when did/will the old covenant pass away?

Grace and peace,
Linda


There is not one answer to that question even in the answer supplied by author himself. First, it was declared old when God made the promise to Jeremiah, then when Jesus affirmed it at the Last Supper... but it was not practically swept away (though judicially swept away at the Cross) until the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

04-15-2003 @ 07:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68337#post68337)
Xmansmommy:



Apollos, if Hebrews was written approx. 63 AD and the OT was nailed to the cross approx. 30 AD how is it possible the writter of Hebrews could say....

....???? :huh:...apparently the old Covenant had not vanished away yet when Hebrews was written. Go figure!

That is common in Scripture....


There is a phenomena in Scripture called the "now/not yet" phenomena where the Biblical writers often, in almost the same breath, say an event is done, and then say we are waiting for the event to be done. Some examples are:

The Kingdom of heaven: Christ says it was among them right then (Matthew 12:28, Luke 17:21), but then also said that they were waiting for it (Matthew 6:10, Luke 21:31)

The Adoption: Paul says that we have now received the spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15), and John says that we are now children of God (1 John 3:2), but Paul also says that we are waiting for the adoption (Romans 8:23, see also 1 John 3:2)

Salvation: We have been saved (Eph 2:8, 2 Tim. 1:9), we are being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, Phil 2:12-13), we are waiting to be saved (Acts 15:11, 1 Peter 1:9)
Glorification: We have already been glorified by virtue of being elected and justified (Romans 8:30) and we will be glorified after we have suffered for Christ (Romans 8:16)
Eternal Life: We have it now (John 6:47), we are waiting for it (Mark 10:30)

Judgment: the world has been judged (John 12:31), the world is being judged (Matthew 25), the world will be judged (Matthew 12:41, Hebrews 9:27)

Death: It has been abolished (2 Timothy 1:10), it will be abolished (1 Corinthians 15:26)

So, these types of events are progressive and consummational. The late David Chilton described it in this manner: "This introduces another basic Biblical pattern, a threefold pattern... Scripture presents salvation in terms of a definitive-progressive-final structure, and this is why Biblical prophecies often seem to overlap. Salvation was definitely accomplished in the perfect, finished work of Christ; it is progressively and increasingly applied during this age, personally and institutionally; and it will be finally achieved, in its highest fulfillment, at the end of history on the Last Day."

[Apollos]

FF -

Thanks for your note.

There are some out there who claim that MML&J (the gospels) actually belong in the OT. I have a serious problem with that and that is what I where I thought you were going.

I believe in most passages it is easy to see what Jesus is teaching. Look at Matthew 25 for example.

Six times Jesus says, "...it was written..." and then states,
"But I say unto you...".

The distinction is clear between His instruction to follow the OT law, which He and his disciples lived under, and His "pre"-revelation of His law to come.

I think Matthew 19:8-9 is another good example.

"From the beginning (divorce) was not so." But under Moses they were granted a writing of divorce.

Then Jesus says, "I say unto you...".

It is easy to see when and where Jesus was speaking outside the realm of being obedient to the OT law He was under, unless one has an agenda to follow.

Your further comments would be appreciated !

[Apollos]

Dee Dee -

There is a phenomena in Scripture called the "now/not yet" phenomena where the Biblical writers often, in almost the same breath, say an event is done, and then say we are waiting for the event to be done.
Good point !!

I believe this is exactly what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthains 13:13 in reference to the cessation of spiritual gifts.

Would you agree ??? :love:

[Darth Xena]

I have to say that I am decided with the "gifts" issue. I am going to wait until your debate with Gavin is done and read through the whole thing.

[Apollos]

Dee Dee -

I see that I have put you, as the moderator of the debate, in a "political" situation. My apologies!

Had I realized this beforehand, I would not have put you "on the spot".

(Does this mean that dinner is off for tonight?? :brow: )

:bawl:

[Darth Xena]

Dear Apollos: Oh!! That is not what I was referring to for I did express some opinions already in the commentary thread. I truly am undecided on this issue so rather than going back and forth with days between points, I really do want to print the final product out and read it. I have read bits of it so far, enough to know that it is one that I want to read in its entiretly.

[Apollos]

DeeDee -

I understand.... You will have plenty to review.

As for the Now/Not yet... It does not look as if 1 Cor. 13:13 fits into that category after my further review. It was an interesting thought for a while though.

[Jacob]

Flim,

The answer to the original question lies in the intended audience. While it is true that the events of the gospels were written about events occurring during the Old Covenant, they were written during the New Covenant, to New Covenant saints.

The gospels are for the Church, since they were written during the church age (dispensationally speaking), and to the church, so they are for the "New Testament" believer. Obviously they can't be for the Old Covenant saints, since the Old Covenant ceased before they were written.


Jacob

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76844#post76844)
Jacob:

Flim,

The answer to the original question lies in the intended audience. While it is true that the events of the gospels were written about events occurring during the Old Covenant, they were written during the New Covenant, to New Covenant saints.

The gospels are for the Church, since they were written during the church age (dispensationally speaking), and to the church, so they are for the "New Testament" believer. Obviously they can't be for the Old Covenant saints, since the Old Covenant ceased before they were written.


Jacob

Jacob,

Some interesting terms you use there--Old Covenant and New Covenant. I'd encourage you to look at Rob Rayburn's dissertation on these terms. He argues (very very well, I might add) that exegetically, we cannot use these terms as synonymous with "Old" and "New" Testament.

Rather, looking back to Jeremiah 31 and the 'OT' use or the term "old covenant" and also to the few, sparse, references in the 'NT', the former refers to the covenant of death, or covenant of works, which has NEVER been useful for salvation. See Gal 3-4, 2 Cor 6-18, and Heb 8:6ff; 9:15ff; 12:18ff.

To assert a radical difference between the Old Covenant (used in the sense which I believe you are using it) and the New, one would have to say that there was not an interiorization of the law before Christ...which would make the Psalms as well as references like Deut 29:4 pretty suspect. The radical difference is an eschatological one, that after Christ, the time is coming when there will be no apostasy (the difficulty is this is prophetic foreshortening, collapsing the Last Day with the Day of Christ's coming to earth).

Read 2 Cor 3, in the context of a polemic against Judaizers, those who would require works for salvation. Then look at some other OT passages like 11:19; 36:29; Prov 7:3; 3:3 which refer to "tablets of stone." The connection is not Sinai as a dispensation, but stony hardness of heart. Yes, the Judaizers are wanting to go back to Moses in a sense, but in a wrong sense, in a way that was never intended--as a means of works-righteousness. For this connection, go to Gal 3:15ff and the contrast between the two covenants, one which is enslavement to the law as a means of salvation and the other which is free (but as the forerunner to Israel cannot mean w/o God's law).

I'm merely summarizing a very long dissertation which goes into great detail regarding the Greek and Hebrew. But that's the sense of it.

Myself, I dislike the terms OT and NT because I would rather emphasize the continuity as a STORY and let the radical discontinuities (there are some) become evident in their natural places, not in artificial breaks.

For what it's worth.

[Darth Xena]

Where might i get that dissertation?

[Hitch]

Natural break:


Luke 16:16
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
(KJV)

H

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77113#post77113)
Hitch:

Natureal break:


Luke 16:16
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
(KJV)

H

:thumb:

[Hitch]

The gospels are for the Church, since they were written during the church age (dispensationally speaking), and to the church, so they are for the "New Testament" believer. Obviously they can't be for the Old Covenant saints, since the Old Covenant ceased before they were written.

'Dispensationally ' speaking, as in the SRB the Gospels are 'pure Law' and have nothing to do woth the church. Though the X9s claim disagreement with Scofield on this specific they do agree. The change of 'dispensation doest not come with the Advent but is strictly measured by the cross. 'dispensationally ' speaking.


Take care

Hitch

[Jacob]

Today @ 04:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77191#post77191)
Hitch:

The gospels are for the Church, since they were written during the church age (dispensationally speaking), and to the church, so they are for the "New Testament" believer. Obviously they can't be for the Old Covenant saints, since the Old Covenant ceased before they were written.

'Dispensationally ' speaking, as in the SRB the Gospels are 'pure Law' and have nothing to do woth the church. Though the X9s claim disagreement with Scofield on this specific they do agree. The change of 'dispensation doest not come with the Advent but is strictly measured by the cross. 'dispensationally ' speaking.


Take care

Hitch


Hitch,

Since I've never followed the theology taught in the SRB, and since only a small percentage of living dispensationalists currently subscribe to that teaching, how are your comments relevant to the discussion? What insight does it add. Besides, I was just answering the original question, which is from a more
"traditional" or "extreme" dispensational perspective than I hold to.

As you note, the change in dispensation comes with the cross. From this perspective, my point is equally valid. Well, I should split a hair....

MOST of the gospels are written about events pertaining to the Old Covenant. I've never bothered to define the "covenant status" of the events between the cross and pentecost.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 11:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76969#post76969)
quetzalphoenix:

To assert a radical difference between the Old Covenant (used in the sense which I believe you are using it) and the New, one would have to say that there was not an interiorization of the law before Christ...which would make the Psalms as well as references like Deut 29:4 pretty suspect. The radical difference is an eschatological one, that after Christ, the time is coming when there will be no apostasy (the difficulty is this is prophetic foreshortening, collapsing the Last Day with the Day of Christ's coming to earth).


quetzalphoenix,

I'm not using the terms in the sense that you thought. While I recognize a distinction between the spiritual dynamics of Old Testament and New Testament saints, I do not ignore the obvious "interiorization" of the Law in the OT. Actually, I believe that the Law never justified the sinner, and always pointed to the need for a renewed/regenerated heart. Also, I don't see the "covenant of works" fitting the covenant mold set forth by Covenant Theologians. In fact, I don't see a "covenant of works". God never set up works as a system of salvation or relationship with him. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

The story of redemption is one of continuity in the plan & will of God, namely, the Kingdom of God. The fact that God has changed some of the "economy" of following Him (several times) only reinforces the fact that man is sinful and in need of His redemptive grace, regardless of the covenant or dispensation.

BTW, Jeremiah was looking forward to the New Covenant, when the Law would be written on their hearts. When do you think this happened?

Jacob

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 03:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77509#post77509)
Jacob:




Hitch,

Since I've never followed the theology taught in the SRB, and since only a small percentage of living dispensationalists currently subscribe to that teaching, how are your comments relevant to the discussion? What insight does it add. Besides, I was just answering the original question, which is from a more
"traditional" or "extreme" dispensational perspective than I hold to. Would it add someting to the discussion if you were to show your source wrt 'small percentage'. especiallly in the knowledge that graduates of DTS currently pastor nearly 3,000 churches and all of them were taught from the SRB? No never mind .



As you note, the change in dispensation comes with the cross. From this perspective, my point is equally valid. Well, I should split a hair....

MOST of the gospels are written about events pertaining to the Old Covenant. I've never bothered to define the "covenant status" of the events between the cross and pentecost.

Jacob

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 12:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76984#post76984)
Dee Dee Warren:

Where might i get that dissertation?

My seminary library has a copy--I know you can get copies of dissertations online for a fee somewhere. I'll check into more details at least on the bibliography for you.

[quetzalphoenix]

Yesterday @ 04:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77550#post77550)
Jacob:



quetzalphoenix,

I'm not using the terms in the sense that you thought.

...

BTW, Jeremiah was looking forward to the New Covenant, when the Law would be written on their hearts. When do you think this happened?

Jacob

I think this happened when the remnant turned back to God and the law was written on their hearts as it had been upon their believing forefather's hearts.

Jeremiah was also looking forward to the day when there would be no more hard-heartedness, a day inaugurated with the day of Christ, but still to come. I think it is prophetic foreshortening, with the immediate reference being the repentance of the nation of Israel. There is also a secondary reference, I think, to the expansion of Israel to include the Gentiles. Pentecost is not so much of an inaguration of a "new way" of experiencing the law as it is a widening of God's purposes back to the original intent--the Abrahamic commission for nations to be blessed, and the promise that nations would stream to Zion.

I'm glad to hear I misunderstood you about your terminology. I'm very much in process on all of this as well, so I appreciate your response--my thinking is muddled right now. There's a lot that Reformed exegetes assume about the 'Old Covenant' that I'm not sure is warranted, but it's difficult to carefully work through.

[Jacob]

04-25-2003 @ 04:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78090#post78090)
Hitch:

Would it add someting to the discussion if you were to show your source wrt 'small percentage'. especiallly in the knowledge that graduates of DTS currently pastor nearly 3,000 churches and all of them were taught from the SRB? No never mind .

DTS has not taught Schofield Dispensationalism for many years. In 1987 I graduated from a Bible College where many older DTS grads were professors. NONE of them adhered to the SRB distinctives which marked that vintage of Dispensationalism. I also had one pastor from DTS, graduated in the 1960's. He didn't hold to SRB distinctives either. All of these THM & Phd recipients held to distinctives more in line with Ryrie, and many were already even questioning some of those distinctives.

Some classes at DTS might make reference to the SRB. Some classes at Westminster might make references to the Apocrypha. I guess you don't have a valid point. But people preoccupied with casting stones seldom do.


Jacob

[Jacob]

04-25-2003 @ 05:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78141#post78141)
quetzalphoenix:



I think this happened when the remnant turned back to God and the law was written on their hearts as it had been upon their believing forefather's hearts.

Jeremiah was also looking forward to the day when there would be no more hard-heartedness, a day inaugurated with the day of Christ, but still to come. I think it is prophetic foreshortening, with the immediate reference being the repentance of the nation of Israel. There is also a secondary reference, I think, to the expansion of Israel to include the Gentiles. Pentecost is not so much of an inaguration of a "new way" of experiencing the law as it is a widening of God's purposes back to the original intent--the Abrahamic commission for nations to be blessed, and the promise that nations would stream to Zion.

I'm glad to hear I misunderstood you about your terminology. I'm very much in process on all of this as well, so I appreciate your response--my thinking is muddled right now. There's a lot that Reformed exegetes assume about the 'Old Covenant' that I'm not sure is warranted, but it's difficult to carefully work through.

I appreciate your careful approach to your teacher's viewpoints. One example from my life is that I went to a cessassionist Bible college (believes tongues are not for today), and I took a class on 1 Corinthians from a DTS graduate. I saw him applying the same hermeneutics I had learned in my hermeneutics class. It was great. That is, until he got to the passages regarding the use of spiritual gifts. I came out of the class with the firm (and correct :teeth:) position that the Bible is non-conclusive regarding the issue of whether tongues are for today.

Always question, seeking truth. Unfortunately, it does leave many waters muddy.

Jacob

[Hitch]

Is there a reason you didnt specify the distinctives you wrote about?

[Jacob]

Today @ 04:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81548#post81548)
Hitch:

Is there a reason you didnt specify the distinctives you wrote about?

Hitch,

Nope. Nothing to hide. Fact is, I remember that they disagreed with Schofield, but I don't remember the particular points (it's been 15 years or longer, and I wasn't a kid when I enrolled).

At that time (mid '80's) some students, usually freshman, would show up with the SRB, and would quote some of the notes, usually to "help" a professor. It seldom went that way, leading to professors pointing out areas where Schofield was wrong. Some students briefly migrated to Ryrie Study Bibles, but most just graduated to NASB without notes (and then there were the Greek Geeks with their vocabulary cards & Greek New Testaments thinking that people in the pews should bring a Greek NT to church -- sheesh -- I've happily changed my perspective :teeth: )

Jacob.