New Covenant

[tryme]

This question comes from a reading of Jeremiah 31 , specifically verse 34 that says

‘They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,�

I was always taught that this was speaking of the new covenant especially the quote I will write my laws on their heart� but this all sounds to me a lot like the millennial kingdom in that No one has to even be taught any religion, and everyone is just born believes and knows. What do you think?

[PinSeeker]

No one will ever see the kingdom unless/until they are "born again".

For sure.

That's what you're waiting for.

Well maybe that's what others are waiting for, but I'm sure not. Why should I wait for something I've already received? Actually, if someone really is waiting for it, then that's evidence they have already been born again. When one's heart is regenerated by God via His Spirit, this is the result: one is born again.

That's what ushers in the new heaven and the new earth.

No, Jesus does this on His return. Those who have been born again will see it.

Read Isaiah. When he has his beatific vision of the Seraphim, he notices that they see only God's glory filling the universe. This comes right on the heels of his despondency at the corrupt situation in Israel. The juxtaposition of these two views is startling if one is paying attention.

Isaiah is describing his own calling and commission to prophesy -- which we all get in some form after our having been born again. Perhaps it might help to take another look at 1 Peter 1:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

Well, I guess I could have underlined the whole passage... But just to say, Peter's (and now my) point being that we have been born again and we are looking forward, with joy inexpressible and certainty, to Christ's glorious return.

So you think no one today sins?

Where did I post that? Whatever I posted certainly shouldn't cause anyone to come to that conclusion.

I wasn't coming to any conclusion; it merely seemed like you were saying that.

Or that there are some today who are sinless?

Do you have any evidence to conclude this an impossibility?

A question is not an answer. Do you think there are folks walking around today who are sinless? And if so, why?

There is no stopping those who God chooses to reveal the kingdom to.

Much agreed.

[PinSeeker]

Yes, the wages of sin is still death. And all those who die not in Christ, whether before He walked the earth or after are doomed to the second death, which is eternal separation from God. Absolutely.

If God is Omnipresent (everywhere at all times), how can one be separated from God for any time?

Yes, eternal separation from God is one consequence of death.

But death is eternal separation from life -- everything!

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing... (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

The second death is a physical death. Those suffering the second death will never live again.

They are aware or conscious of nothing!

Nope. What you are ascribing to is called annihilationism, and it's wrong.

The first death is physical death. The physical death process involves the separation of the human spirit or soul from the physical body. The death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, was described as her “soul� departing from her “body� (Gen. 35:18). At the point of death, the body returns to the dust, but the spirit returns to God (Eccl. 12:6-7), Who will deal with it appropriately (Gen. 18:25).

The second death is an ultimate and eternal separation from God. This condition is characterized as the second death because it follows physical death. It is designated as death because it is the terminal separation from the Lord (Mt. 7:23; 25:41; 2 Thes. 1:9). Try substituting the term “annihilation� for “death� in the Revelation passages and see what sort of sense it makes, e.g., “the second annihilation.� The very expression represents an absurdity. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that “hell� will involve the extermination of either Satan, evil angels, or wicked humans (Mt. 25:41,46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10).

To explain further:

Texts like Jude 6, Matthew 8:12, Matthew 22:13, and Matthew 25:30 show that darkness signifies a state of deprivation and distress, not of destruction in the sense of ceasing to exist. After all, only those who exist can weep and gnash their teeth, as those banished into the darkness are said to do.

Nowhere in Scripture does death signify extinction; physical death is departure into another mode of being, called Sheol or Hades, and metaphorical death is existence that is God-less and graceless; nothing in biblical usage warrants the idea that the “second death� of Revelation 2:11; 20:14; and 21:8 means or involves cessation of being.

Moreover, Luke 16:22–24 shows that, as in a good deal of extrabiblical apocalyptic, fire signifies continued existence in pain. The chilling words of Revelation 14:10 with 19:20 and 20:10, and of Matthew 13:42, 50, confirm this.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 Paul explains, or extends, the meaning of “punished with everlasting [eternal, aionios] destruction� by adding “and shut out from the presence of the Lord� -- which, by affirming exclusion, rules out the idea that “destruction� meant extinction. Only those who do exist can possibly be excluded. It’s often been pointed out that in Greek the natural meaning of the destruction vocabulary (noun, olethros; verb, apollumi) is “wrecking,� so that what’s destroyed is henceforth nonfunctional rather than annihilated altogether.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 10 by FWI]

FWI, I can't reply to your PM; it says your inbox doesn't accept PMs. The answer to your question is yes, I do support that doctrine (although I say that with some trepidation, because there may be some aspects of it that we would disagree on). If you would like to discuss anything privately, I would be happy to, but you would have to turn on your inbox.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 21 by PinSeeker]

No one will ever see the kingdom unless/until they are "born again". That's what you're waiting for.

Why should I wait for something I've already received?

What have you received? If you haven't received the kingdom, you haven't actually received much of anything. The waiting spotlights the reality.

Actually, if someone really is waiting for it, then that's evidence they have already been born again. When one's heart is regenerated by God via His Spirit, this is the result: one is born again.

Uh, no. There is no waiting when one is born again. Being born again is not the result. It is the means. The entire old testament is a witness to the existential fact of the waiting game. The entire world groans in expectation, but when one see's what John sees, the wait is over for the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear the good news, and are only too eager to walk away from their dreary lives with all their junk and follow Christ. Following Christ is a consequence of discovering the kingdom, but too many people still think they can keep their junk and follow Christ. They're only deceiving themselves.

That's what ushers in the new heaven and the new earth.

No, Jesus does this on His return. Those who have been born again will see it.

Like I said, you're still waiting. The good news of the kingdom is not about sitting around in a waiting room for 70 or 80 years. Christ himself pointed out that those God has chosen were making their way into the kingdom right then and there. Right in front of those pesky Pharisees who were not only waiting themselves, but blocking entrance to the kingdom as well. Hence the incredible amount of force required to bust through that annoying road block presented by those who would rather wait around for the rest of their lives than enter into the kingdom. Go figure.

Read Isaiah. When he has his beatific vision of the Seraphim, he notices that they see only God's glory filling the universe. This comes right on the heels of his despondency at the corrupt situation in Israel. The juxtaposition of these two views is startling if one is paying attention.

Isaiah is describing his own calling and commission to prophesy -- which we all get in some form after our having been born again.

Nope. Not even close. You're conflating one's commission with the content of the prophecy. I'm pointing out the reality of the content itself. The fact is that all that corruption is irrelevant to the revelation of God's glory. It is ecclipsed by God's glory. That is exactly how it is with the revelation of the kingdom. Those who are waiting for something objectively to happen are clueless to the difference between God's kingdom and the kingdoms of this fallen world. They will wait their entire lives and willfully die in their sin.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.


Well, I guess I could have underlined the whole passage... But just to say, Peter's (and now my) point being that we have been born again and we are looking forward, with joy inexpressible and certainty, to Christ's glorious return.

Notice that Peter juxtaposes the revelation of Christ with the fact that it isn't something they have seen. He says it twice for emphasis. They love what has been revealed to them, yet it will never be something they see because the kingdom never comes by observation. For some, it is necessary that they undergo trials and tribulations. Others look at it as an opportunity to be a witness of God's grace, glory, mercy, etc. which is abundant and everywhere eternally. As Jesus would say, "Let him who has ears, hear". The rest will just have to wait...

Do you think there are folks walking around today who are sinless? And if so, why?

Yes, the reason being that the elect cannot be decieved. If this is the case, then they could only sin willfully, which precludes them from being the elect in the first place. If they do not sin willfully, and they cannot be decieved, then they cannot sin. As it turns out this is precisely what we see when the new covenant is described. See Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19;36:26; Hebrews 8:9,10)
God explicitly points out the reason for regerneration is 'that they may keep my commandments'. He doesn't say "that they may try to keep my commandments". Paul backs this up by pointing out that it isn't by "will or effort"(Rom.9:16) as it was under the old covenant. The new covenant is insured and warranted by God himself so there is no possibility of failure. It isn't dependant upon one's ability to keep God's commandments. With God all things are possible, but the posers like to add, "...except keeping God's commandments".

For the new creature, who was created to keep God's commandments, it is the easiest thing in the world because the new creature is created to keep them. It makes no sense to think that this perfection will arrive when there is no longer a choice. How does one refrain from committing adultery when there are no marriages to begin with? Therefore, it is just as the texts indicate, but it is only those who are spirit born, and spirit driven.

It's just one of those things that makes the good news so unbelievably good. Unfortunately it's also what makes it too good for too many people to believe. People want to beleive that they're already reborn, but they have to twist the texts to fit their sinful lives. They fail the tests, and see this as unimportant. What's important is that they're being tested. For them, this is proof that they're saved and reborn. That's not what Peter is saying though, is it? Nope. He's pointing out that they are passing the tests because it is the faith of Christ revealed in the midst of tribulation that fills them with hope. They're hope is a certainty because they know they are incapable of obedience, faith, charity, etc. So when they see all of this taking place through them, they know it is God Who is accomplishing it. The unbeliever can't see that because they're still relying upon some objective understanding of doctrine rather than Christ manifesting within the reborn believer.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 22 by PinSeeker]

myth-one.com wrote:
They are aware or conscious of nothing!

Nope. What you are ascribing to is called annihilationism, and it's wrong.

Call it whatever you want. It's biblical.

The first death is physical death. The physical death process involves the separation of the human spirit or soul from the physical body. The death of Rachel, Jacob’s wife, was described as her “soul� departing from her “body� (Gen. 35:18). At the point of death, the body returns to the dust, but the spirit returns to God (Eccl. 12:6-7), Who will deal with it appropriately (Gen. 18:25).

The word in the Hebrew is "nephesh", and is usually translated as "life". It isn't a thing. It's life, "the breath of life" etc.

The second death is an ultimate and eternal separation from God. This condition is characterized as the second death because it follows physical death. It is designated as death because it is the terminal separation from the Lord (Mt. 7:23; 25:41; 2 Thes. 1:9). Try substituting the term “annihilation� for “death� in the Revelation passages and see what sort of sense it makes, e.g., “the second annihilation.� The very expression represents an absurdity.

Not really, due to the fact that death is final. When the body dies, life is snuffed out. That person is gone. Only the body remains, and the body is not who you are. When we read of Satan being turned to ashes from within, he is annhilated. It's as if he never existed. It makes no sense for the damned to jump into the lake of fire before death itself is swallowed up, especially if the lake of fire doesn't do away with anything. For your interpretation to make any sense at all, requires that death be swallowed up in the lake of fire first, THEN everyone who jumps in aferward will burn for eternity. Fortunately, that's not the case. The authors know the correct chronology of events, and as it turns out it also makes perfect sense. Again, notice that death is swallowed up last. Therefore, there is no more death, and as it happens, everyone else who was destined for annhilation is already gone when that happens.

There is absolutely no biblical evidence that “hell� will involve the extermination of either Satan, evil angels, or wicked humans (Mt. 25:41,46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10).

There are three Greek words that are translated as "hell" in the New Testament scriptures. They all have completely different definitions. The Hebrew "Sheol" which is "the grave" is translated as "hell". Then there is Tartarus which is the repository of those wicked fallen angels who attempted to thwart God's plan of salvation during the days of Noah. This is also translated as "hell". Then there is "Gehenna", or "Geena of fire" which is from "ben Hinnom" the name of the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. He uses it as an illustration of the torment of those who are lost to sin. Torment is what one does to themselves, not what others do to you. Torment is from within, while torture is what people do to other people. Sin torments people, and drives them crazy. There is no end to it unless or until one is redeemed by the grace of God. For some that means redemption. For other it is annhilation. In either case, it is through God's grace and mercy.

Nowhere in Scripture does death signify extinction; physical death is departure into another mode of being, called Sheol or Hades, and metaphorical death is existence that is God-less and graceless; nothing in biblical usage warrants the idea that the “second death� of Revelation 2:11; 20:14; and 21:8 means or involves cessation of being.

Christ's victory is over death. The texts indicate that through sin, "death" entered into the world, and it is through Christ's death that death is conqured. For those who are not protected by Christ's sacrifice, the penalty is going to be death; not some other "mode of being". There is nothing in scripture to support other "modes of being" as the penalty of Adam's sin.

Moreover, Luke 16:22–24 shows that, as in a good deal of extrabiblical apocalyptic, fire signifies continued existence in pain. The chilling words of Revelation 14:10 with 19:20 and 20:10, and of Matthew 13:42, 50, confirm this.

Christ's parable was directed at the Pharisees for their incorrect doctrines which they brought with them from the Babylonian captivity. He was using their own teachings against them. They were the ones who taught all this nonsense about Abraham's bosom, so Christ isn't teaching anything about what happens after one dies, especially using Pharisaic doctrines borrowed from Babylon.

In 2 Thessalonians 1:9 Paul explains, or extends, the meaning of “punished with everlasting [eternal, aionios] destruction� by adding “and shut out from the presence of the Lord� -- which, by affirming exclusion, rules out the idea that “destruction� meant extinction.

Sorry, but the authors aren't clueless to the meaning of words. Setting your non sequitur aside, shut off from the presence of the Lord means death. The lord is life itself.

Only those who do exist can possibly be excluded.

Yeah, sure. Tell that to the guy on the gallows who is being excluded from life. Again, God is life. To be separated from God is to be separated from life. It doesn't then follow that separation from life is to continue living in another "mode of being".

It’s often been pointed out that in Greek the natural meaning of the destruction vocabulary (noun, olethros; verb, apollumi) is “wrecking,� so that what’s destroyed is henceforth nonfunctional rather than annihilated altogether.

A distinction with no effective difference. A wrecked destroyed city may be nonfunctional, but it is still gone. When a city is raised to the ground, it is flattened as if it was never there. Sure it used to be a city. It used to be there. It used to be functional as a city. Now it's gone. It could be rebuilt, but it would be a new city. This is what the gospel is pointing out. Those who are regenerated are like new cities. Those who aren't are like Hiroshima a week after an atom bomb obliterated it. Flat scorched ground doesn't function as a city. It functions as flat scorched earth. With separation from God, it's not only dead, but will never live again.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by tryme]


The bible has several prophetic saying that are structured in a type and anti-type way. The decree of God, in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is one of them…Where, the type, would be how God's laws were taught initially and the anti-type would be the future way of teaching these laws to man.

In the beginning (Genesis), these laws were taught by the patriarchs and passed down from generation to generation. Since, this method had its problems, a new method was necessary. Hence, God recorded His laws on tablets of stone (Exodus) and later required all of Israel's leaders to record them on scrolls (the rest of the writings). However, the problems didn't go away and God's laws were still "continually" being broken by the Israelites and mankind in general…The Israelites were supposed to be the example nation for all other nations, but that didn't work out the way it was planned! Therefore, the most logical way for man to receive God's laws would be for God to write them into their minds and being. This would assure that there would be no confusion on what the laws of God are…

This began, with the Son of God and also occurred at Pentecost (Acts 2). Then, a select group of individuals (Luke 12:32, John 6:44 and Matthew 22:14). And, "finally" many will come from the masses, during the resurrection of the dead. Which, will be, during the first thousand years of the "Kingdom of God" on this earth…

So, the decree of God, in Jeremiah 31:31-34 has nothing to with the changing of the laws of God, only the method of receiving them. Thus, there really isn't an old or new covenant, as many teach. There is just God's decrees, in the past and additional ones afterwards…

This is so close to the truth, I hesitate to say anything, but originally the laws of God aren't taught at all. Adam is perfect in everyway. He was created to stand in perfection, but fell through transgression. From then on, God's laws are kept by one's own abilities. The codification of the law at Mt. Sinai is only because they had completely lost touch with God's laws while in bondage. The codification of God's laws is nothing new at all. It's simply a way to organize it to better facilitate instruction. The fundamental way in which is is carried out is identical.

The game changer is as you point out when God plants the law in our hearts, but I wouldn't say it was primarily so we can agree on what God's laws are, but so that we can all keep God's law. God creates a heart to keep God's law. The law is no longer kept because it should be kept, but because the new creature is created to keep it.

[myth-one.com]

But the problem is that for any man or woman, it is impossible to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law. Such was always the case, both before the cross and after.

But our salvation is contingent upon someone doing so!

Do you see that as a problem?

. . . since it is impossible for any man or woman to fulfill the Law and thereby merit salvation, only by Jesus's propitiation can any be saved.

But Jesus was a man, and you just stated that no man could possibly fulfill every jot and tittle of the law.

Propitiation properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift.

What gift did Jesus have to offer if He sinned?

Please define what you mean by "Jesus's propitiation."

Thanks

[PinSeeker]

But the problem is that for any man or woman, it is impossible to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law. Such was always the case, both before the cross and after.

But our salvation is contingent upon someone doing so!

Much agreed. Thanks be to God for the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. And that's true for all saints, both before Jesus lived and those that have come after.

Do you see that as a problem?

Nope. There is none.

. . . since it is impossible for any man or woman to fulfill the Law and thereby merit salvation, only by Jesus's propitiation can any be saved.

But Jesus was a man, and you just stated that no man could possibly fulfill every jot and tittle of the law.

Right; Jesus was not merely man, He was also fully God. His very name means "God With Us." Therefore Jesus, though he was also fully man (born of a woman) was able to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Law... and He did.

Propitiation properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift.

No, 'propitiation' comes from a Latin term meaning "to appease." He appeased God the Father by satisfying His justice on our behalf.

What gift did Jesus have to offer if He sinned?

Well, if He had sinned, nothing. But He didn't.

Please define what you mean by "Jesus's propitiation."

His act of atonement on the cross. It was effectual both backward and forward in time.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 22 by PinSeeker]

myth-one.com wrote:
They are aware or conscious of nothing!

Nope. What you are ascribing to is called annihilationism, and it's wrong.

Call it whatever you want. It's biblical.

It's fine with me if you want to think that, but annihilationism is most assuredly not biblical. So we agree to disagree. Again, there is absolutely no biblical evidence that “hell� will involve the extermination of either Satan, evil angels, or wicked humans (Mt. 25:41,46; Rev. 14:9-11; 20:10). Nothing in biblical usage warrants the idea that the “second death� of Revelation 2:11; 20:14; and 21:8 means or involves cessation of being.[/quote]

Christ's victory is over death. The texts indicate that through sin, "death" entered into the world, and it is through Christ's death that death is conquered.

Right, and those who are in Christ will not see the second death, eternal separation from God.

...shut off from the presence of the Lord means death. The lord is life itself.

Right, but it does not mean ceasing to exist.

It’s often been pointed out that in Greek the natural meaning of the destruction vocabulary (noun, olethros; verb, apollumi) is “wrecking,� so that what’s destroyed is henceforth nonfunctional rather than annihilated altogether.

A distinction with no effective difference.

In your opinion. But it's wrong. You think otherwise. Fine. We disagree. Peace.

[myth-one.com]

...shut off from the presence of the Lord means death. The lord is life itself.

Right, but it does not mean ceasing to exist.

Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 22:13)
And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25:30)
Terms such as "cast" and "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" imply that these verses are references to hell:

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)
If these verses do refer to hell, then hell is located in outer darkness. But what does "outer darkness" mean? As an indicator of location in our universe this has no meaning to man. If the universe is indeed infinite, then from any point in the universe one can travel infinitely in all directions and never reach the end of the universe. Therefore, outer and inner have no meaning as locations within our universe. "Outer darkness" could indicate the state of death. That is, the darkest of dark, without any light or cognizance. After all, the dead know not anything:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing... (Ecclesiastes 9:5)
Indeed, "outer darkness" is a good description of hell as regards man, since all men cast into hell are quickly burned to death. This is their second death and the end of their existence; thus, outer darkness.



But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)