Abrahamic Salvation?

Man, Sin, & Salvation
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed May 05, 2021 2:33 pm

If the law of Abraham is the same as the New Covenant, then why does the New Covenant not command physical circumcision, as the Lord commanded Abraham?

Also, if they are the same, then why is the New Covenant called New? Why didn't Jesus point out that He was just reiterating the law of Abraham?

Abraham obeyed God and kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws. Genesis 26:5 But God apparently didn't think it was necessary to list for us what they were. So, since we don't know exactly what they were, you cannot say that they were the same as the New Covenant, because you don't know. You can only speculate, which you are, and your speculation doesn't pass the test. I already gave you one difference. The New Covenant does not command physical circumcision, but God did require that of Abraham and his male family members.

Since this "foundation" is flawed, all of what you say is also flawed, just like all man-made cults are.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by commonsense » Wed May 05, 2021 11:19 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 2:33 pm
If the law of Abraham is the same as the New Covenant, then why does the New Covenant not command physical circumcision, as the Lord commanded Abraham?
I believe it was added and not by God. Physical circumcision was a practice of pagan cultures as well. Why would the one true God command the same?
dwight92070 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 2:33 pm
So, since we don't know exactly what they were, you cannot say that they were the same as the New Covenant, because you don't know.
"If you were children of Abraham, you would be doing the works of Abraham( producing the fruit of the Spirit) What works was Jesus doing? He was apparently doing the works of Abraham since he was Abraham's seed. And If we belong to Christ, we are Abraham's seed and should be doing the same.

Jesus was a priest according to the order of Mel.

Deut. 10:16 'Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart."
Deut.30:6 'And the Lord your God will circumcise the foreskin of your heart and the heart of your descendants to love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live."
Jer. 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your hearts."

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by dwight92070 » Thu May 06, 2021 7:43 am

commonsense wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 11:19 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 2:33 pm
If the law of Abraham is the same as the New Covenant, then why does the New Covenant not command physical circumcision, as the Lord commanded Abraham?
I believe it was added and not by God. Physical circumcision was a practice of pagan cultures as well. Why would the one true God command the same?

Dwight - So now you pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament you want to believe? Genesis 17:9-14 The Lord God Himself commands physical circumcision for Abraham, his sons, grandsons, and even the male servants. There is no question that God Himself added this, whether pagan cultures practiced it or not.


Dwight - The laws of the Old Covenant were spelled out - all 613 commands. The laws of the New Covenant are spelled out - which is the New Testament. Why is it that God never spelled out the so-called "laws of Abraham"? Because those laws were never meant to be followed by all of Israel. They were specifically for Abraham to obey within his family. God never demanded that the nation of Israel, which didn't arrive on the scene until Moses brought them out of Egypt, specifically follow the laws given to Abraham. Rather, they were to obey the laws given to Moses. Most likely, some of those Mosaic laws were similar to the laws given to Abraham. But we don't know, because God never put them in His word.

Dwight - Yes, circumcision of the heart was commanded. But so was PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION, first to Abraham, then to Moses, but NOT in the New Covenant. So , if you throw out physical circumcision, what other parts of the "laws of Abraham" will you disregard?

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by commonsense » Thu May 06, 2021 10:47 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 7:43 am
Dwight - So now you pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament you want to believe?
Yes. There are things in the Bible that didn't come from God, namely the Levitical law. Why do you think they say not to add to the word of God? Because they added to the word, which caused many to stumble and fall.
dwight92070 wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 7:43 am
Why is it that God never spelled out the so-called "laws of Abraham"? Because those laws were never meant to be followed by all of Israel.
Yes, they were meant to be followed by all of Israel and Jesus spelled them out for us, rightly dividing the word of truth from those that are false.

False teachers of false words are doomed to destruction. And those who follow them also fail. "The blind leading the blind and both fall into a ditch."
And that's exactly what happened to Israel.

"For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage which is Hagar.
But he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according( IN or conforming to) to the Spirit, even so it is now."
"Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON."

Both the Levitical priesthood and their laws and ways were cast out and their temple torn down because they were teaching false things in the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

They were a tree that was bearing bad fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut off." And we are not to return to it.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Jesus is God

Post by commonsense » Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:11 pm

darinhouston wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:53 am
Ditto, though one could quibble over whether Jesus was the founder of the new covenant or the Father was. But, otherwise a hearty amen. I'm really struggling to see whether commonsense is coming from a particular denominational perspective or whether his is a personal doctrine, but it would be helpful to wrap my head around his perspective and address it more effectively if I knew what tradition informed it (if any).
Darin, I don't come from any particular theological doctrine, I'm simply reading what the Scriptures are saying.

The New Covenant is called New because it was New to the people who were raised in other beliefs(faiths), including those who believed in the Levitical law. This was not the faith of Abraham, nor was it the covenant that was given to him.
Galatians 4:21-31 says there were TWO covenants, the one from Mount Sinai ( the Levitical law) which was born according to the flesh and gives birth to bondage. The other covenant, which was given to Abraham, gives birth to children of the Spirit.

One covenant was cast out, which leaves one covenant.
Jesus wasn't just then "planting the vineyard". The "vineyard" was planted in Abraham.
The "seed"( the word of God) that Jesus was planting was the "seed" of Abraham, the word of God that was given to Abraham.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:48 am

commonsense wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:11 pm
darinhouston wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:53 am
Ditto, though one could quibble over whether Jesus was the founder of the new covenant or the Father was. But, otherwise a hearty amen. I'm really struggling to see whether commonsense is coming from a particular denominational perspective or whether his is a personal doctrine, but it would be helpful to wrap my head around his perspective and address it more effectively if I knew what tradition informed it (if any).
Darin, I don't come from any particular theological doctrine, I'm simply reading what the Scriptures are saying.

The New Covenant is called New because it was New to the people who were raised in other beliefs(faiths), including those who believed in the Levitical law. This was not the faith of Abraham, nor was it the covenant that was given to him.
Galatians 4:21-31 says there were TWO covenants, the one from Mount Sinai ( the Levitical law) which was born according to the flesh and gives birth to bondage. The other covenant, which was given to Abraham, gives birth to children of the Spirit.

One covenant was cast out, which leaves one covenant.
Jesus wasn't just then "planting the vineyard". The "vineyard" was planted in Abraham.
The "seed"( the word of God) that Jesus was planting was the "seed" of Abraham, the word of God that was given to Abraham.
I moved this response to "Abrahamic Salvation" where we've been discussing these views since it's more relevant there than the "Jesus is God" topic.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by commonsense » Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:24 pm

Dwight, you brought up Romans 4:11-12 which is a debate over PHYSICAL circumcision. God didn't promise Abraham that he would be heir of the world because he was physically circumcised. This was just a tradition of men. God made this promise to him because of his circumcised heart and his obedience to the law of the Spirit. Anyone can be physically circumcised. This was a practice even among the pagans. Just as anyone can wear a cross around their necks or get a cross tattooed on their arm, this doesn't make you righteous before God.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Jun 30, 2021 9:59 am

commonsense wrote:
Tue Jun 29, 2021 11:24 pm
Dwight, you brought up Romans 4:11-12 which is a debate over PHYSICAL circumcision. God didn't promise Abraham that he would be heir of the world because he was physically circumcised. This was just a tradition of men.

Dwight - I don't see any debate going on in Romans 4:11-12. Rather, Paul is explaining the function of circumcision and how that relates to faith, using Abraham as an example. Obviously, he was the first to be commanded by God to be circumcised.

Dwight - Physical circumcision was a command of God to Abraham, not a tradition of men. Genesis 17:9-14 tells us clearly that it was God's idea, not man's. In Genesis 17:23-27 Abraham obeys God and is circumcised himself, and all the men in his family and household are circumcised. God repeated the command (not a tradition) to Moses in the Law in Leviticus 12:3 - every male Israelite was to be circumcised on the 8th day.

Dwight - Romans 4:11 tells us that circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness of the faith that he (Abraham) had WHILE UNCIRCUMCISED". No one said that circumcision makes a person righteous (or an heir of the world)- certainly not God.

Dwight - It's just like baptism (in water) today. Baptism does not save a person, but it is a "seal" (or a sign) of the righteousness of the faith in Jesus, that a person has WHILE NOT BAPTIZED. Even as God commanded circumcision, so Jesus commanded water baptism. Of course, under the New Covenant, Jesus never commanded physical circumcision.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by commonsense » Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:57 pm

Dwight," Cast out the bondwoman and her son." God's word( Law) does not change. It is the same yesterday and today.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Abrahamic Salvation?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Jun 30, 2021 11:56 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:57 pm
Dwight," Cast out the bondwoman and her son." God's word( Law) does not change. It is the same yesterday and today.
Dwight - "For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second". "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first OBSOLETE. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Dwight - Did you notice, the writer of Hebrews isn't even mentioning the covenant with Abraham here? He's referring to the law of Moses and the new covenant that Christ instituted. Today, we are NOT living under the covenant with Abraham or the law of Moses. We are submitted ONLY to Jesus and His new covenant. The law of Moses was definitely God's word to Israel, as long as it was still being observed. But when Christ came, the law of Moses became obsolete and was replaced by something better.

Post Reply

Return to “Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology”