The New Covenant

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[sobeit9]

The New Testament uses both the words "Neos" meaning new as opposed to old and "Kainos" as unique.  Hebrews 12: 24 identifying Jesus Christ as the mediator of the new covenant is the only passage where neos is used.  Every other passage  uses kainos suggesting "unique." Why is the new covenant unique?

Hebrews 8:

1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
 3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[a] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

 7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
   "The time is coming, declares the Lord,
      when I will make a new covenant
   with the house of Israel
      and with the house of Judah.
 9It will not be like the covenant
      I made with their forefathers
   when I took them by the hand
      to lead them out of Egypt,
   because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
      and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
 10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
      after that time, declares the Lord.
   I will put my laws in their minds
      and write them on their hearts.
   I will be their God,
      and they will be my people.
 11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
      or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
   because they will all know me,
      from the least of them to the greatest.
 12For I will forgive their wickedness
      and will remember their sins no more."[c]

 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

The new covenant is unique because it internalizes the law of God.  the Ten Commandments suggest what to do. This is external reaction  We've become too hardened so is no longer effective.  The new covenant opens the heart to receive help from the Holy Spirit. This is unique.

Israel didn't have the heart or nature to obey God (Deuteronomy 5:29). The old covenant contained no provision for internal motivation to obey God (Hebrews 8:7-8, Romans 8:3). In the new covenant God promises to put His laws into the mind and write them on the heart (Hebrews 8:10). What does this mean?

It is no longer normal from becoming hardened  to delight in God's will. Psalm 40:8.  It is not what we do: Romans 8:7.  The new covenant promises the power to obey God  through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which is a unique feature of the new covenant.. In short, the Holy spirit allow us to change what we ARE.  Where the old is concerned with what we DO, the new is concerned with what we ARE, the change in our nature possible through the help of the Spirit.:

The new covenant renders the old "obsolete"  It allows us to transcend our inner condition.that makes the law impossible and become our spiritual potential.

The new covenant suggests the forgiveness of sins through this inner change and eternal inheritance.  But without agreeing on the essence of the new covenant and its concern for what we are as more important than what we do, it seems senseless to proceed further  So, do we agree as to the necessary distinction between what we ARE and what we DO because of the inner hypocrisy of the "wretched man" and what it denioes us?

[Acumen]

This ought to get an interesting response. 

[gluadys]

The new covenant promises the power to obey God  through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit which is a unique feature of the new covenant.. In short, the Holy spirit allow us to change what we ARE.  Where the old is concerned with what we DO, the new is concerned with what we ARE, the change in our nature possible through the help of the Spirit.

[snip]

 So, do we agree as to the necessary distinction between what we ARE and what we DO because of the inner hypocrisy of the "wretched man" and what it denioes us?

I would agree on the distinction, but this should not lead to the devaluing of what we do.  The point of becoming a new humanity with a new nature is that we now DO what the law requires through the inner motivation of love rather than external promise of reward or punishment. 

As Paul says in Ephesians 2:10 “For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”


I find it particularly interesting that Paul claims God has already prepared good works for us to do.  How very important it is then for us to do them.  Can we make any legitimate claim to BEING a new creation in Christ if we are not DOING the works we are created in Christ to do?

[sobeit9]

Hi Gluadys

I find it particularly interesting that Paul claims God has already prepared good works for us to do.  How very important it is then for us to do them.  Can we make any legitimate claim to BEING a new creation in Christ if we are not DOING the works we are created in Christ to do?

I agree and this raises two important questions for me: how do we know what to do and in what way are they done that makes them more than secular reactions?

We all have heard "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" but what does it mean?  It is clearly connecting to levels of reality: heaven and earth so for me it means that God's will is being done when we are psychologically connecting these two levels.

We are guided by external morality which is a conventional belief in established values of right and wrong.  However, this inner connection of levels requires us to experience inner morality.  This is where I believe the knowledge of these good works are

Plato helps here.  The URL won't appear here but will be in topic summary. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm

Plato realizes that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Christianity that heals the heart in turn allows for our conscious experience of the connection between heaven and earth.  Then the Christian balance between head, heart, and body, could be open to the guiding experience of inner morality.  What we do then would be an expression of this quality of inner morality.

I believe this is the pure intent of the New Covenant where the law is understood as a function of our inner morality.

I can help an older person with their groceries for a purely secular reason or as a natural extension of inner morality.  The outer work is the same.  The inner quality of my being that motivates this reaction differs.  I believe that it is through this inner moral quality that "The will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

[gluadys]

I agree and this raises two important questions for me: how do we know what to do and in what way are they done that makes them more than secular reactions?

I am not sure that one can meaningfully distinguish "Christian" and "secular" reactions.  I don't think the reaction of a secular person is necessarily devoid of an inner motivation that is different from that of a  Christian. 

We are guided by external morality which is a conventional belief in established values of right and wrong.  However, this inner connection of levels requires us to experience inner morality.  This is where I believe the knowledge of these good works are.

In that case, I don't think Christians or theists have a unique access to this knowledge.  I think it is as often found in the secular humanist, the agnostic and atheist as in the religious person.  And, deplorably, as often missing in the religious person, including professed Christians, as in any other demographic.

The URL won't appear here but will be in topic summary. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm

I can see it fine. 

I can help an older person with their groceries for a purely secular reason or as a natural extension of inner morality.

I think this is a false dichotomy.  Both a secular person and a professed Christian may help an older person with their groceries because they understand from external direction that this is the "right" thing to do.  And both a secular person and a professed Christian may help as a natural extension of inner morality.

To equate "secular reason" with "externally imposed" or "conventional" moral standards does a disservice to the real inner morality of  many secular persons. 


 

The outer work is the same.  The inner quality of my being that motivates this reaction differs.  I believe that it is through this inner moral quality that "The will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

I agree, as long as this concept is not accompanied by the false dichotomy mentioned above. 

[Acumen]

Glu,

Both a secular person and a professed Christian may help an older person with their groceries because they understand from external direction that this is the "right" thing to do.  And both a secular person and a professed Christian may help as a natural extension of inner morality.

I think the secular person can and will do the right thing, but this doesn't mean they "understand" why it's the right thing.  In fact, I would go a step further and say that the agnostic and the atheist do NOT understand why their moral actions are indeed moral.  They have been conditioned by childhood "instructions" and have developed principles and methods that minimize harm to others, and thereby do moral things, but do not understand why such principles of minimizing harm is a good thing.  BTW, this applies to Christians to.

To equate "secular reason" with "externally imposed" or "conventional" moral standards does a disservice to the real inner morality of  many secular persons.

Why?

-Acumen

[gluadys]

Glu,

Both a secular person and a professed Christian may help an older person with their groceries because they understand from external direction that this is the "right" thing to do.  And both a secular person and a professed Christian may help as a natural extension of inner morality.

I think the secular person can and will do the right thing, but this doesn't mean they "understand" why it's the right thing.

There is no basis for making that assumption.

  In fact, I would go a step further and say that the agnostic and the atheist do NOT understand why their moral actions are indeed moral.

Just because they don't agree with your understanding of why moral actions are moral doesn't mean they lack understanding.

They have been conditioned by childhood "instructions" and have developed principles and methods that minimize harm to others, and thereby do moral things, but do not understand why such principles of minimizing harm is a good thing.  BTW, this applies to Christians to.

Indeed, so have we all.  But let us not assume that only Christians can rise above that conditioning.

To equate "secular reason" with "externally imposed" or "conventional" moral standards does a disservice to the real inner morality of  many secular persons.

Why?

Because it assumes that they cannot rise above their external conditioning and develop a true inner motivation.  There is nothing to demonstrate that this is impossible for them. 

[julrich]

Wasn't it Jeremiah who called it a new covenant?  That would make it old by the time of Jesus.  Or are we saying they meant "NEW NEW"?  new as opposed to old is relative in time.  So relative to what?  Does "New" Testament imply the Hebrew sacred literature is old hat?

big julie

[gluadys]

Wasn't it Jeremiah who called it a new covenant?  That would make it old by the time of Jesus.  Or are we saying they meant "NEW NEW"?  new as opposed to old is relative in time.  So relative to what?  Does "New" Testament imply the Hebrew sacred literature is old hat?

big julie

A standard Christian perception would be that Jeremiah prophesied a new covenant which came into being in Jesus.

It is the new covenant that makes the old covenant obsolete.  Letter to the Hebrews goes into that in some detail.

But the covenant is not the scriptures.  Otherwise the Church should have listened to Marcion and ditched the old scriptures (as Islam did, on the premise that although the People of the Book had received true revelation, their scriptures had become corrupted). 

But the Christian approach to the old scriptures can be somewhat ambiguous.  For example:  the Holiness Code in Leviticus is by and large "old hat" with the glaring exception of its condemnation of homosexual behaviour.  OTOH, the Ten Commandments are accepted as being still totally relevant, except for the commandment to keep the seventh day as a sabbath to the Lord. 

[Acumen]

Glu,

Acumen:  I think the secular person can and will do the right thing, but this doesn't mean they "understand" why it's the right thing.

Glu:  There is no basis for making that assumption.

How do you know?  You didn't here the reasoning.

Just because they don't agree with your understanding of why moral actions are moral doesn't mean they lack understanding.

Wouldn't that depend upon what my understanding is?  Do you believe in an objective right and wrong?

Indeed, so have we all.  But let us not assume that only Christians can rise above that conditioning.

In my opinion, there are two other groups who could lay similar claims of moral understanding, and that would be Jews and Muslims.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims can lay similar claims of understanding moral purpose due to their theistic status, but this doesn't necessarily mean they would or if they did, they are correct in their moral understanding.

Because it assumes that they cannot rise above their external conditioning and develop a true inner motivation.  There is nothing to demonstrate that this is impossible for them.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.  What do you mean by "true inner motivation?

-Acumen

[gluadys]

Glu,

Acumen:  I think the secular person can and will do the right thing, but this doesn't mean they "understand" why it's the right thing.

Glu:  There is no basis for making that assumption.

How do you know?  You didn't here the reasoning.

I heard the reasoning.  I did not agree with it. 

Just because they don't agree with your understanding of why moral actions are moral doesn't mean they lack understanding.

Wouldn't that depend upon what my understanding is?  Do you believe in an objective right and wrong?

It is not an objective right and wrong that is the issue here.  It is, in your own words, whether a person understands why the right thing they do is right, why their moral actions are indeed moral. 

You have a basis that provides you with such an understanding.  But you are also assuming that it is the only basis for providing such an understanding.  Someone else may do the same right action with a different understanding of why it is right, but it will still be an understanding of why it is right.  As long as the motivation is internal, not a mere submission to conventional, external, social mores, it is just as effective an understanding as yours, and just as much a natural extension of inner morality. 

In my opinion, there are two other groups who could lay similar claims of moral understanding, and that would be Jews and Muslims.  Christians, Jews, and Muslims can lay similar claims of understanding moral purpose due to their theistic status, but this doesn't necessarily mean they would or if they did, they are correct in their moral understanding.

So you are assuming that theism is a sine qua non of moral understanding.   On what do you ground that assumption? 

gluadys: Because it assumes that they cannot rise above their external conditioning and develop a true inner motivation.  There is nothing to demonstrate that this is impossible for them.

I really don't know what you're talking about here.  What do you mean by "true inner motivation?

-Acumen

Earlier you said:

I can help an older person with their groceries for a purely secular reason or as a natural extension of inner morality.  The outer work is the same.  The inner quality of my being that motivates this reaction differs.

By "true inner motivation" I mean the same thing as you mean here by "a natural extension of inner morality" and "the inner quality" of being that "motivates" the reaction to help an older person with their groceries.

You seem to be assuming that a secular person or non-theist will only be reacting to the external social consensus on moral behaviour and never from an inner quality of being by which s/he understands why moral action is moral. 

I see no ground on which to base this assumption.  To me it sounds prejudicial, nor do I find it to be concordant with experience. 

[sobeit9]

glu

If a terrorist doing the moral right as he has been taught in defense of his god, decides to fly a plane into a bulding  killing many, are his actions moral on the basis of his beliefs?

[Acumen]

Glu,

It is not an objective right and wrong that is the issue here.  It is, in your own words, whether a person understands why the right thing they do is right, why their moral actions are indeed moral. 

When dealing with issues of morality, objective right and wrong are ALWAYS the issue, which is why I'm not positive you know what's being discussed here.  What good is an "understanding" of right and wrong if we're not focusing on the objectivity of morality?

You have a basis that provides you with such an understanding.  But you are also assuming that it is the only basis for providing such an understanding.  Someone else may do the same right action with a different understanding of why it is right, but it will still be an understanding of why it is right.  

No doubt.  What you say is true by definition.  By understanding, I'm referring to a holistic kind of knowledge that includes origins, not just the way someone perceives something.  If objective morality exists, then there is only one type of understanding that is correct -- all other types of understanding is really just different perspectives or interpretations of what is correct.

So you are assuming that theism is a sine qua non of moral understanding.   On what do you ground that assumption?

I ground the assumption on the basis that objective morality cannot logically exist without some authoritative Creator being to authorize and issue them.  If you have no Creator being, then one must settle for convention -- those rules tactically engineered and enforced to sustain the survivability and security of social groups or societies.  Morality is then reduced to utility, not truth.

gluadys: Because it assumes that they cannot rise above their external conditioning and develop a true inner motivation.  There is nothing to demonstrate that this is impossible for them.

Acumen:  I really don't know what you're talking about here.  What do you mean by "true inner motivation?

Gluadys:  Earlier you said: I can help an older person with their groceries for a purely secular reason or as a natural extension of inner morality.  The outer work is the same.  The inner quality of my being that motivates this reaction differs.

That wasn't me who said that, which is probably the reason why I didn't understand what you meant.

By "true inner motivation" I mean the same thing as you mean here by "a natural extension of inner morality" and "the inner quality" of being that "motivates" the reaction to help an older person with their groceries.

Oh, okay. 

You seem to be assuming that a secular person or non-theist will only be reacting to the external social consensus on moral behaviour and never from an inner quality of being by which s/he understands why moral action is moral.

Maybe that's what Sobeit is saying, but I'm not.  I believe that all people are endowed with a conscience -- a moral compass.  I think these moral compasses are tuned and conditioned by the conventions of society, but not wholly dependent upon them.  The conscience, in my opinion, is independant from societal conventions because it was meant to reflect objective rights and wrongs.  The conscience of some people have become seared by bad living and poor habits, so they cannot properly reflect true morality.  This might be touching on what Sobeit is saying, but who knows.

-Acumen

[gluadys]

glu

If a terrorist doing the moral right as he has been taught in defense of his god, decides to fly a plane into a bulding  killing many, are his actions moral on the basis of his beliefs?

Ah, a different matter than helping the lady with her groceries. 

The first issue is still the same, however.  Is he doing this for the external reason that he has been taught by others that it is right?  In that case it is what you styled "a secular reason."  I don't agree with the terminology, but I do agree that this would then be an example of merely convention-bound morality.  (a "secular" reason hardly seems an appropriate label for religion-based terrorism). 

Or is he acting out of his own inner sense of morality such that  he not only believes he is doing right but knows what makes it right? 

I don't see why in principle this might not be the case.  But it brings to mind another matter: the quality of the inner light by which he is guided. 

"If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"
Matt. 6:23

[sobeit9]

glu

Ah, a different matter than helping the lady with her groceries. 

The first issue is still the same, however.  Is he doing this for the external reason that he has been taught by others that it is right?  In that case it is what you styled "a secular reason."  I don't agree with the terminology, but I do agree that this would then be an example of merely convention-bound morality.  (a "secular" reason hardly seems an appropriate label for religion-based terrorism). 

Or is he acting out of his own inner sense of morality such that  he not only believes he is doing right but knows what makes it right? 

I don't see why in principle this might not be the case.  But it brings to mind another matter: the quality of the inner light by which he is guided. 

"If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"
Matt. 6:23

Religion based terrorism is a secular expression of religion.  Once a religion has become secularized, its quality is at the same level as any other institution and subject to the same hypocrisies.

The whole idea of objective morality is that it exists regardless of our conditioned beliefs and possible for us to get out of our own way long enough to be able to experience.  Objective morality is the truth that exists behind our subjective inner sense of morality.  The question then is if they can ever become the same.

[Today]

• Religion gets ugly by CCC460 [Today at 02:21:47 PM]
• God No Longer Male by SteveC [Today at 11:04:09 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 06:34:27 AM]
• Jewish Understanding by kwd111 [Today at 05:37:00 AM]
• Mayans Answer Questions A... by SteveC [September 08, 2010, 03:57:03 PM]
• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [September 07, 2010, 10:31:39 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [September 07, 2010, 12:09:55 PM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87138
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 61
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 3
Guests: 22
Total: 25

CCC460
kwd111
Coachbob