Friday, September 11, 2009

38) The new man is a new covenant believer

Ephesians 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,

By perfectly fulfilling the laws and commandments that were given to Israel, Jesus effectively abolished them in order that he might create one new man in place of the two. This new man WAS NOT created simply by bringing Gentiles into the old covenant. No, the new man is a new creation in Christ, and is a new covenant believer regardless of whether he is Jew or Gentile. Jesus fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law for Israel and all of humanity in order that he might create a single new man saved by His grace. Salvation is all about Jesus Christ and not ethnicity. It is about the new covenant fulfillment of the Old Testament promise and not just another administration of a single covenant.

Focus on Christ #38

21 comments:

mark pierson said...

The ultimate compliment I can pay to you is to ask you to compile all of these posts into one, and that post will be the kick-off of the new direction for the Blue-Collar blog. Let's consider that to be 6 weeks from my son's operation on October 9. That way his recovery will be out of the way, my employment woes will be better understood, etc, etc...

adoseofhealthyskepticism said...

sdfskdfjlsdkjfs

ahealthydoseofskepticism said...

Jazzycat,

With what authority do you speak about the word of god...which by the way was written by men?

jazzycat said...

Mark,
Great to hear the Bluecollar will start back with posts. I will glad to get a post ready on these devotionals.

That will be around thanksgiving if I have added the weeks right. My hope and prayers are with your son and your family.

jazzycat said...

ahealthydoseofskepticism,
With what authority do you affirm your world-view?

ahealthydoseofskepticism said...

Jazzycat,

I'm glad I found your blog...someone had to because it doesn't appear to have high traffic.

Anyway, I have science, reason, and scholarly knowledge on my side. I am well read on the historical Jesus and I look forward to taking you to task!!

ahealthydoseofskepticism said...

Jazzycat,

Please answer my question without asking a question.

jazzycat said...

Healthydose,
One does not need to have authority to read the Bible and offer an opinion. I have no authority other than being a Christian.

Take me to task huh! I will assist in any way I can.

ahealthydoseofskepticism said...

So, you are stating that people can have different opinions about the Bible, correct?

And, if you don't need to have an authority, then why did you ask me about what authority I affirm my world view?

jazzycat said...

healthydose,
Exactly my point! I thought it would be obvious to you that everyone has a world-view. No authority is required to have one. Christianty is my world-view and though you haven't declared yours, you certainly have one.

The major information and truth to form my world-view comes from the Holy Bible.

jazzycat said...

Healthydose,
So, you are stating that people can have different opinions about the Bible, correct?

Certainly, just like they can and do have different opinions on many issues. What is your world-view and your opinion about the Holy Bible?

ahealthlydoseofskepticism said...

A world view that is based on a religion that is thousands of years old is too simplistic to utilize as a world view...this is why most Christians have such a narrow minded viewpoint of the world seen throught the lens of simple, old myths. Death and Resurrection, good and evil, right and wrong.
Think about it. Back then, it was thought that:

evil spirits caused illness

the sun was the center of the universe

God favored certain nations

It was ok to have slaves

Women were property

You get my point.

No Jazzycat, I refuse to let a narrow minded religion shape my world view. I take the philosophy of the secular humanist, who strives for all good things in life: social justice, love, peace, harmony without the baggage of a God who is vindictive, jealous, spiteful, and favors some nations over others. Of course, this is the language of the Old Testament, which was also written by spiteful, vindictive, jealous men.

jazzycat said...

Healthydose,
Good to see your return,
YOU SAID……A world view that is based on a religion that is thousands of years old is too simplistic to utilize as a world view. A world view that is based on a religion that is thousands of years old is too simplistic to utilize as a world view...this is why most Christians have such a narrow minded viewpoint of the world seen throught the lens of simple, old myths. Death and Resurrection, good and evil, right and wrong……………………………..AND………………………….
I refuse to let a narrow minded religion shape my world view. I take the philosophy of the secular humanist, who strives for all good things in life: social justice, love, peace, harmony.


1) First you say the Christian view of right and wrong is too narrow minded and then assert that your secular humanist world view strives for good things in life. If you strive for good in life doesn’t that mean you are against bad things and evil?

2) Would you say that the unborn babies who are caused to be partially born and then brutally and painfully killed are receiving the good things in life such as social justice? Should I be impressed with the social justice philosophy of a secular humanist society that practices such outrage?

3) What is your secular humanist definition of social justice?

4) You bring up many charges that I will answer and defend, but the way it is going to work here is you will have to defend your secular humanist world view as well.

You have shown a total lack of understanding of Biblical revelation, but your basic charge seems to be that it is not true. If it is not true, then all of the problems throughout world history is the direct result of the evil that exists within the human heart. So, we [you and biblical revelation] are in agreement that evil is the fault of humanity and not God.

I am really quite amused by this “social justice” that secular humanists keep referring to, so I will wait for your response on that before I continue.

swordbearer said...

So far, I've seen more blind arrogance than scholarship from adohs.

Jazzy, I look forward to seeing his answers to your questions.

adoseofhealthyskepticism said...

I need to know why I don't understand biblical revelation. I have a deep knowledge of christianity as a student of history and a recovering christian.

I am more than happy to give you a (not the) definition of a secular humanist's world view.

Secular humanists have a burning desire to understand the world in which they live in. They don't want it dictated to them by the good book or a hierachical structure based on white men.

We are then determined to understand ethics by a systematic inquiry into the ideas that allow humans to flourish. These conditions include freedom from fear and want, freedom of conscience, freedom to inquire, freedom to self govern, freedom to choose committed relationships, etc. Basically, our worldview is compatible with science and reason.
We also believe that there is only one life, that it is up to each one of us to make the best world for all to live in, because there is nothing after this life. In other words, you get one chance. I know many christians who, no matter how difficult this life seems, can always take heart in the afterlife. This mentality breeds apathy and acceptance. Boy, are they in for a surprise!

And, please do not make the mistake that all secular humanists are pro-choice, just as there are plenty of christians who are pro-choice as well.

Now, to use you partial birth abortion statement. There is no question that it is an awful procedure. I personally feel that partial birth abortion should only be allowed IF it is going to save the life of the mother.

There are two camps: One camp who does not feel this situation ever arises, and one who believes that it does. I hope I never have to experience such a decision, but if I did, I would want my wife and her doctor to be able to make that decision. And I think most women would choose to stay alive, but I know there are some who would not. It's not the government's business to dictate this issue.

Now its your turn. 1) Biblical revelation?

2) Your world view through the lens of a ragtag compilation of stories?

3)Do you believe that the bible is the absolute word of god?



And JC, BTW, one can be against evil in the world without the lame god v. devil dichotomy...of course, there is a long tradition of mankind being perfect until the devil woman (Eve) offered Adam the apple and we've been going downhill ever since. Yes, today, I am paying for the sins of ONE MAN who lived thousands of years ago and disobeyed one of god's laws (pretty silly law, don't you think) Does that story make logical sense to you??

jazzycat said...

Healthydose,

Before I answer your questions, I am puzzled about your affirmation of social justice, love, peace and harmony. If the life of a mother is in danger because she is with child and a decision is made that her chances would be better if the baby were removed, then why kill the baby? There are cases of aborted babies from a saline solution that alive today. Why kill the baby. Then you state government should not dictate this issue. Should government dictate that a one-hour-old baby that was born prematurely with an abnormality should not be killed? The point is that government dictates a lot of issues of morality. I do not want to argue the abortion issue, but you come here claiming your world-view is grounded in social justice, love, peace, and harmony, and then assert you are for killing babies that could survive outside of the womb. I have serious questions and doubts about the ethics and morality of such a world-view. It does not seem to have a solid foundation of ethics. As to your assertion about pro partial birth abortion Christians, I should remind you that not everyone who claims Christ actually belong to Christ.

Then you state that your world-view is based on a burning desire to understand your world but you don’t want it dictated by a hierarchical structure based on white men. How can you have such a racist sexist view and claim to have a spirit of love, peace, and harmony? Would a hierarchical structure of non-white women be all right?

You say you are for ideas that provide freedom from fear and want, freedom of conscience, freedom to inquire, freedom to self govern, freedom to choose committed relationships, etc. Do you have any ideas that would provide for freedom from fear and want? This is pure fantasy wouldn’t you say.

Your questions:
1) Biblical revelation! While there is faith involved in biblical revelation, it is not a blind faith as archeology and history has affirmed much biblical revelation. The prophecies that the bible contains are also remarkable in that events and people were predicted hundreds of years before they happened. The prophecies about Jesus Christ are remarkable and attest to the truth of Scripture.

2) I have a Christian world-view that is based on a solid foundation that does not shift with the prevailing political culture. My world-view is built on the ethics and values that Jesus Christ and the apostles present in the New Testament. Whereas, the changing laws in America are a testament to the shifting ethics and inconsistencies of secular humanism. Currently we have secular humanists, who claim human rights and are against enhanced interrogation techniques for brutal terrorists [even if such techniques may save hundred thousands of lives] and are for the legal practice of killing babies.

3) Yes. I also believe that your view of this revelation misses the mark by many miles. Also, I will not defend the many erroneous views that are held by other people. In other words our debate will have to be on my views and not what Pat Robertson or anyone else thinks.

swordbearer said...

adohs: "I need to know why I don't understand biblical revelation."

Response: How about your views on it being okay to have slaves, the sun being the center of the universe, women being property, etc. ... WITHOUT any contect or cultural recognitions.

adohs: "Secular humanists have a burning desire to understand the world in which they live in. They don't want it dictated to them by the good book or a hierachical structure based on white men."

Response: On what grounds do your attribute your positions to be based on truth, and to be the right positions?

adohs: We are then determined to understand ethics by a systematic inquiry into the ideas that allow humans to flourish.

Response: So, when it comes to matters like abortion, is it better to allow them (and allow the woman to flourish) or not to have them (and allow the baby to flourish? Upon what basis is this determined?

adohs: Basically, our worldview is compatible with science and reason.

Response: Since when did science ever have to do with the basis of ethics?

adohs: We also believe that there is only one life,..."

Response: And your evidence is????

adohs: "... that it is up to each one of us to make the best world for all to live in,

Response: WHY? on what basis? On the basis that we are all an eternal accident with no ultimate purpose or accountability? What if it prospers some to get rid of others (i.e., Hitler, etc.)? What about eugenics?

adohs: "...This mentality breeds apathy and acceptance."

Response: Obviously you have no understanding of biblical revelation, sanctification and works!

adohs: And, please do not make the mistake that all secular humanists are pro-choice, just as there are plenty of christians who are pro-choice as well.

Response: So are you suggesting an ethical system where some say abortion is right and others say abortion is wrong and they can both be right? You deserve the condemnation of the prophet who spoke of those who call evil good and good evil.

adohs: Your world view through the lens of a ragtag compilation of stories?

Response: "ragtag" - obviously you are unfamiliar with the central message and the thread that tie the Scripture together.

adohs: one can be against evil in the world without the lame god v. devil dichotomy...

Response: So what is the authoritative standard?

adohs: "I am paying for the sins of ONE MAN who lived thousands of years ago"

Response: Do you deny sin in your life?

adoseofhealthyskepticism said...

JC,
By the way, is your nickname some sort of spin off of jesus christ?


To your point about partial birth abortion: you make the incorrect (and convenient) assertion that all fetuses that are aborted via partial birth are viable at the time of the procedure...this is patently false. IF the fetus is viable, then you obviously have a legitimate point...i would agree the baby should live.

Even during the height of the Bush administration when the ban was passed, an exception was allowed for the health of the mother.

I have a racist/sexist view? Seriously? I can only guess you are in the "reverse" racism camp. The problem is there is no such thing...racism ideology comes from a position of power and strength.

And by the way, nobody, I mean nobody who understands torture believes it is effective in getting useful information...would Jesus torture? What would Jesus do?

Since you claim the bible is the absolute word of god, does your Christian world view include the Old Testament?

And who is this swordbearer guy?

His point about cultural context is EXACTLY why the bible cannot be the absolute word of god!!! If it were, then our opinion about such matters would not change!!

Show me your evidence of the afterlife! Please!! I wish it did exist!

And BTW please don't pray for me

jazzycat said...

healthdose,
PART 1:

By the way, is your nickname some sort of spin off of jesus christ?

No, I have a beautiful cat named Jazzy. Please check out my main Jazzycat Blog.
You did not answer the following question that you stated was a part of your world-view: Do you have any ideas that would provide for freedom from fear and want? Please answer that.

To your point about partial birth abortion: you make the incorrect (and convenient) assertion that all fetuses that are aborted via partial birth are viable at the time of the procedure...this is patently false. IF the fetus is viable, then you obviously have a legitimate point...i would agree the baby should live.

Are you aware that a fetus is an unborn alive baby? Many that are aborted and killed could live outside of the womb and there is a lady abortion survivor that speaks on behalf of pro-life organizations to explain some of the procedures used in killing babies. She has a severe handicap caused by the failed attempt to kill her during the abortion. She was saved by a nurse, when the abortion Dr. left the room. I never said all, but one thing is for sure if you kill them without giving them a chance to live then we really don’t have very accurate statistics do we?

Even during the height of the Bush administration when the ban was passed, an exception was allowed for the health of the mother.

I have no problem with that if the health of the mother means a serious physical threat to her life and you don’t kill the baby but try to save it if possible. Unfortunately when democrats want the health of the mother escape clause, they are also referring to mental health of a woman. This of course amounts to unlimited abortion since a quack can always be found to say her mental health will be affected.

The problem is there is no such thing...racism ideology comes from a position of power and strength.

Are you saying it is not possible for non-whites to be racist toward white people? This is a totally absurd position that certainly can’t be reconciled with your stated position of social justice, love, peace, and harmony! It points to the very inconsistencies of secular humanism that I have already asserted.

jazzycat said...

Healthydose,
PART 2:

And by the way, nobody, I mean nobody who understands torture believes it is effective in getting useful information...

You are wrong here as the government reported and documented that water boarding was very effective at getting information that other methods failed to get. You should listen to all of the news and not just liberal talking points. Are you aware that US service personnel are water boarded in their training. Or at least they used to be.

would Jesus torture? What would Jesus do?

I study what Jesus did and taught rather than speculate on what he might do in different situations. Christian guidance for government authority is given in Romans 13 among other places. Check it out.

Since you claim the bible is the absolute word of god, does your Christian world view include the Old Testament?

I certainly believe the Old Testament is the word of God, and is useful in many ways including giving the details in God’s plan of redemption through the physical nation of Israel. However, I believe all of the exhortations for Christian living, sanctification, obedience, and discipleship are contained in the New Testament.

And who is this swordbearer guy?

He is my close friend and Pastor. He is much more knowledgeable than me especially in Old Testament theology.

Show me your evidence of the afterlife! Please!! I wish it did exist!

I doubt I can prove it to your satisfaction. Can you show me how life came from non-life? Or how something came from nothing? Or what the uncaused cause is if it is not a supreme being? My point here is that it takes more faith for you to deny an afterlife than it takes for me to affirm an afterlife. Don’t think for one minute that secular humanism does not require faith unless of course you can prove these questions I ask from your “reason.” Can you?

I will let swordbearer answer the questions you direct at him.

swordbearer said...

adohs: "His point about cultural context is EXACTLY why the bible cannot be the absolute word of god!!! If it were, then our opinion about such matters would not change!!"

Response: Obviously, you fail to understand both the basic priciples of exegesis (one must consider such things as the spiritual, historical, cultural, linguistic, genre, etc., settings of the original text) to best interpret the text... as well as the fact that through scholarly exegesis timeless biblical truths and principles can be discovered.

Seems on the issues mentioned, you have either simply adopted the uncritical views of novice unbelievers and adopted them as your own or have failed to examine the various aspects of interpretive data to arrive at the conclusions you have.

I'll be interested to see if you're willing to put your conclusions and accusations to the test, and if when they are proven wrong on both a scholarly and truth basis, you will reconsider the worldview you assert. Experience shows most who make these type statements do so not because they have arrived at them through thorough examination of the evidence but because they have first made an a priori choice concerning the existence of God and then seek to find whatever they can to support it.

Since you "have science, reason, and scholarly knowledge" on your side, we look forward to seeing your responses to the questions I put before you. Please don't let the fear that your own heart's orientation might be exposed get in the way, for there is a solution to that offered in the very gospel you now oppose. What a wonderful thing it is for a person when they not only discover there is an afterlife (as you have mentioned) but when one discovers and receives the gift with which one can look forward to it!