What was counted to Abraham for righteousness?

Josheb

Well-known member
Lol! OK, but I'd beg to differ, you knew the phrase wasn't in Scripture. That is the definition of being disingenuous.
LOL! The discussion is not about me.
Are you unable to own up to anything Josheb?
Ahhh... what a dilemma. Shall I resist the tu quoque? Who is being disingenuous now (since you and I have previously had occasion where I have acknowledged error and/or fault)?
That has nothing to do with your disingenuous post. 😂 ;)
That is incorrect. My question wasn't about me, my knowledge, or lack thereof. It wasn't specifically about any poster, and thinking that might have been the motive was an erroneous assumption. It's an understandable one given the rancor and disingenuousness common in this particular board (along with a few of the other ones, like Eschatology 😦).

Not everyone may know the answer to the question asked AND it is very common for those asserting scripturally unstated things in the Arm v Cal board to post their views as scripture AND refuse to answer questions like the one I asked. A similar example in the Eschatology board would be asking a Dispensationalist where scripture explicitly states a third temple will be built. We ALL know the answer but two things are revealed when that question is answered or not answered. Same held true here. Not only was the truth made known collaboratively and without offense, but our brother demonstrated and modeled integrity for all of us. I, for one, value that.

Try it sometime.

And I don't see him complaining.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
Have you ever done a word search and counted the number of times the word "covenant" occurs in the plural? Give it a quick look. Tell me what you make of the results.
there's a page in my Bible that says Old testament and another page that says New testament

is this Bible correct? only Two "testaments" exist?
 

Josheb

Well-known member
cov·e·nant
[ˈkəvənənt]
NOUN
covenants (plural noun)

  1. an agreement:
    "there was a covenant between them that her name was never to be mentioned"
VERB
covenants (third person present)

    • agree by lease, deed, or other legal contract:
      "the landlord covenants to repair the property"
????? We're trusting Bing?
 

eternomade

Well-known member
It is good :cool:. You might want to show the readers where that is mentioned in scripture (and maybe add a little about its scripturally provided context) and explain how that is op-relevant ;).
My understanding is the Phinehas is a type of the Lord Jesus Christ. It's also a picture of the Gospel. I don't see how faith would be relevant in this passage though, because this covenant was between the Father and the Son. But, I definitely believe this passage in Numbers 25 is about Christ/the cross.

1. He shed a lot of blood
2. He was a Priest
3. He turned the wrath of God away from God's people.
4. He was zealous

I've bolded some parts I believe are important below.

Numbers 25
1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.

3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.

4 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel.

5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.

6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;

8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.

9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.

12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
LOL! The discussion is not about me.

Ahhh... what a dilemma. Shall I resist the tu quoque? Who is being disingenuous now (since you and I have previously had occasion where I have acknowledged error and/or fault)?

That is incorrect. My question wasn't about me, my knowledge, or lack thereof. It wasn't specifically about any poster, and thinking that might have been the motive was an erroneous assumption. It's an understandable one given the rancor and disingenuousness common in this particular board (along with a few of the other ones, like Eschatology 😦).

Not everyone may know the answer to the question asked AND it is very common for those asserting scripturally unstated things in the Arm v Cal board to post their views as scripture AND refuse to answer questions like the one I asked. A similar example in the Eschatology board would be asking a Dispensationalist where scripture explicitly states a third temple will be built. We ALL know the answer but two things are revealed when that question is answered or not answered. Same held true here. Not only was the truth made known collaboratively and without offense, but our brother demonstrated and modeled integrity for all of us. I, for one, value that.

Try it sometime.

And I don't see him complaining.
Um, it doesn't matter if the other knew the answer, it was whether or not YOU did. THAT is what made your question, and you frankly, disingenuous.

I'm not complaining either, simply stating the fact. Whether or not he complains has nothing to do with it, so that is non sequitur.

I figured you'd come back with some long-winded diatribe, and yep, that's what you did, LOL!!!!

The fact remains, even amidst all of your protesting, your post was in fact disingenuous. Argue and justify all you want, I really don't care, what I stated was a fact: Your inquiry, to be reduntant, was again disingenuous. :)

I wanted to see if you could own that, and wanted to see how you would react, figuring you wouldn't allow it, and I was correct. That's the pattern I'm seeing.

But anyhow, take care!
 

Josheb

Well-known member
there's a page in my Bible that says Old testament and another page that says New testament

is this Bible correct? only Two "testaments" exist?
ROTFLMBO!

You do know those delineations were added to the scripture long after the scriptures were written, yes? What we call the "Old Testament" was not called the "Old Testament" when it was written. Neither was the New Testament. All the early Church called those writings was "scripture."


But more importantly, that post completely ignored the actual specific content of the post it quoted. So let's try that inquiry again and this time I'll provide some facts from the scriptures and ask you what you make of it in light of that article claiming there are eight covenants and some of the posters' assertions there are only two or three (like the covenant of grace, or that of peace). The word "covenant" (singular) occurs more than 300 times in the Old and New Testaments. The plural form occurs only four times (Hos. 10:4; Rom. 9:4; Gal. 4:24, and Eph. 2:12). One of those mentions speaks about vain covenants men make. Another speaks of two covenants, one of which has nothing to do with the line of covenants of which Abraham is a Patriarch. Another one of the plural pools several covenants under the auspices of "promises."

What will be found, if what I suggested is done, is that God often speaks of several covenants in singular form, such as when He speaks within Moses, or the Law, as a covenant of Abraham or the patriarchs. Look it up. Ultimately, all the God-initiated covenants can be understood as foreshadows on the covenant found only in Christ. Such is the case with the covenant God initiated with Abraham. The gospel was preached to Abe.

And he believed.

But that belief did not occur in a vacuum, nor did it occur solely in his flesh. And that is important to this thread.
 

Josheb

Well-known member
That is, unless @Josheb wants to tell us he didn't know if the phrase was in Scripture or not.
Of course I knew and nearly everyone currently in the thread knew that before I asked the question because you've all read me previously expound on the matter, and often times in compensation for my disdain for Dispensationalism. CT has its own questionable aspects, but that's not the topic at hand. I broached the matter of covenant because it is an inherent and inextricable context in which Abraham's faith exists and rarely do I read synergists knowing it, much less acknowledging it.... less often discussing it.


Bring that dross right out into the light, baby. Let's take a look at the context of the covenant in which faith occurs because it is all monergistic 😁.




I gotta take a break. Wife's calling.
 

Josheb

Well-known member
Um, it doesn't matter if the other knew the answer, it was whether or not YOU did...
We can repeat ourselves ad nauseam if you like but you're wrong and you're off-topic. You're wrong because nothing in the thread is about me and you're off-topic because this thread is about Abraham's faith being credited to him as a matter of soteriological debate.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Of course I knew
So did I, your inquiry was disingenuous.
Bring that dross right out into the light, baby.
I already did, your dross.
Let's take a look at the context of the covenant in which faith occurs because it is all monergistic 😁.
That's another subject. You're moving the goal posts. It is very difficult for you to admit being wrong, isn't it?
I gotta take a break. Wife's calling.
Saved by the Belle!
 

Josheb

Well-known member
so every time the word "covenant" appears in Scripture, it's a New one?
No. More likely the opposite. The many covenants are often spoken of by God as a single covenant. You don't have to debate this with me. Just examine the scripture's use of the terms and see for yourself.


I gotta go but if you want to belabor the point I'll walk you through some examples, but no one need wait on me to do that study.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
Ultimately, all the God-initiated covenants can be understood as foreshadows on the covenant found only in Christ. Such is the case with the covenant God initiated with Abraham.
why can't unconditional covenants still in effect just stand on their own as what they are and who they were made with?

there is no covenant cut specifically with The Church
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
We can repeat ourselves ad nauseam if you like but you're wrong and you're off-topic.
No, I'm correct, your post was disingenuous, so were you.
You're wrong
LOL!!!!!!!
because nothing in the thread is about me
Your post was about you, and you were disingenuous.
and you're off-topic because this thread is about Abraham's faith being credited to him as a matter of soteriological debate.
LOL!!!!!!!!! Thou dost protest too much. Your disingenuous post had zero to do with the OP. You're trying way too hard, lol!
 

Josheb

Well-known member
why can't unconditional covenants still in effect just stand on their own as what they are and who they were made with?

there is no covenant cut specifically with The Church
I am unaware of any unconditional covenant in the Bible. Can you show me where that is stated?
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
I am unaware of any unconditional covenant in the Bible. Can you show me where that is stated?
so you didn't bother to read the study on covenants

only God went thru the pieces of animals, not Abraham
in that covenant - it's on God to make those promises to Abraham a reality, not Abraham
 

joline

New Member
Hey joline. Could you explain why Baptism is a Marriage thing, as it relates to Arminianism and Calvinism?
A bride immerses herself in connection with the wedding. From what I have understood from reading, a betrothed wife was distinct, from a concubine. A concubine did not have a ketubah.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
Baptism is also a marriage thing. The bread and wine are also an Melchzedek thing.
sure, and believers did sacrifices way way way back as well
but not Mosaic law specific sacrifices

or water immersion or cups and bread with the Jewish context

there is Freedom in Christ -
perhaps those of The Church can just make up whatever they want to

lil' cracker pieces and thimble of grape juice, baby sprinkles
neither matters to or bothers me personally really

but those things (water baptism, cups and bread breaking) had/have meaning in Jewish life
Jesus possibly did't drink the 4th cup of wine at the Last Supper - why not? does it mean anything? maybe...
the first Jews who believed Jesus were told to be water baptized - did it do anything specific for them at that time? maybe...
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
A bride immerses herself in connection with the wedding. From what I have understood from reading, a betrothed wife was distinct, from a concubine. A concubine did not have a ketubah.
Are you talking about Jewish Wedding Tradition or Law?

Would you agree that Baptism relates to Soteriology, because it pictures the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in good Conscience?
 
Top