The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Matthew 7:21 never enter heaven?


I’ll chime in on that. So LLC, how many of the Laws put forth in Leviticus and Deuteronomy do you actually follow? All? Some? Pick and choose? The New covenant of Christ opened the door for humanity (and we will have to designate the ‘nations’) to have a dialog with it’s creator. Apart from the law, the law that man could not keep. Pure and simple.


The covenant God made with Abraham was NOT the Levitical law. Chapter and verse might be interesting?

And what covenant did God make with the fathers in the day He brought them out of the land of Egypt?
According to Jeremiah and all the other prophets, God never commanded all that is written in the Levitical law.
Jer. 7:22 'For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt I did not speak to them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
1 Sam.15:22
Psalm 40:6
Psalm 51:16
Isaiah 1:11-14
Hosea 6:6
Isaiah 58:5
In fact, they repeatedly tell us what God requires.
" Is this not the fast I have chosen to break the chains of wickedness, to untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and tear off every yoke?Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and to bring to your house the poor who are cast out. When you see the naked that you cover him and not hide yourself from your own flesh? "
“If you extend your soul to the hungry and satisfy the afflicted soul then your light will shine in the darkness.”
"Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord and I will cause you to ride the high hills of the earth and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father."

The Jewish faith still exists today. Temple worship is not long dead and gone as you claim. It comes in many forms. To me, the battle over the Temple Mount is an example. And from what understand, many are talking about building another temple.


It’s true. I have the banner picture right here!


And I have a picture, of one of the founders!


And let’s inject a little lightness, from today’s Sunil Bali Blog. Perhaps if LLC (and some other’s here), followed this turkey preparation advice…their theologies might become, a bit more sound. :wink:


Boss: Do you believe in the afterlife?

Employee: No I don’t, because there’s no proof.

Boss: So if I could prove to you that there is life after death, would you believe in the afterlife?

Employee: If you could prove it 100%, then I would believe in life after death.

Boss: OK. Here’s the proof. After you left early yesterday to go to your Uncle’s funeral, he came here looking for you to go and play golf.


Derrr… I never said it was. You however make this bold claim…

You then even reproduce this, BUT then summarily ignored the FACT that it debunks your claim…

God’s NEW covenant by its very nature was TO REPLACE that which He had previously established prior to the new, i.e., logic! And WHY was that? Well, note the latter portion of the verse above with regards to the FORMER covenant… “My covenant which they broke.” — pretty clear, obvious and in need of no twisting — He would bring in the new BECAUSE they had trashed the old.

Well LLC… the form I referred to, of which you ducked and weaved therefrom, was the form centred around SACRIFICE… animal sacrifice — you have documentary proof of this regular occurrence today in the Temple of Jerusalem as the key part of their Hebraic religion as once practiced ???

Your original claim and latest objection are shown to be inaccurate and unsustainable.


God doesn’t change His Law or covenant because mankind refuses to obey. They were established from the foundations of the earth and we either walk accordingly or we fall. When the Israelites broke the Ten Commandments and worshipped the golden calf, God didn’t say, “Oh well I guess I’ll change My words because they’ve been trashed.” Sorry, but things don’t work that way. As Mark 12:9 says “What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” The covenant is what it is and is everlasting, as Genesis 17:7 says.

Animal sacrifices weren’t the only problems with the Levitical law. There were other man-made additions that were contrary to God as well. It was basically a system built on man’s desire for power, control and wealth.


In light of this text below (one amongst others) where is the textual evidence for your continual claim above?

Heb 8:13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Davo, the covenant may have been “new” to the people who had been raised according to a different belief or another faith and were hearing it for the first time; but it was not new to those who had kept it from the beginning.

Deut.4:13 "He declared to you His covenant, the Ten Commandments, He commanded you to
follow, which He wrote on two tablets of stone."
Exodus 34:28 “He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."
Deut.9:15 “And the two tablets of the covenant were in my two hands.”
1 Kings 8:9 "There was NOTHING in the ark except the to stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord had made a covenant with the Israelites after they had come out of the land of Egypt.”

This covenant was made with the Israelites in the day of the assembly, and they all heard it.

1 Cor. 10:24 “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ.”

Sorry, but Abraham was NOT the father of the Levitical law/Jewish faith. He was the father of the Christian faith.
Deut. 3:29 “For the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob is the place of His inheritance.”
Verse 12 “The Lord alone led him and there was no foreign god with him.”

Deut. 12:12 "and the Levite who is within your gate, since he has no portion nor inheritance with you."

Hebrew 7:11 "Therefore , if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizidek. Verse 16 “who has come, not according to the law of fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life.”


Are you saying that the OC was the same as the NC?


LLC… there was NO “may have been” about it at all — Christ wrought a totally NEW COVENANT in His blood (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 2:20), much superior to all other covenants (note the plural, i.e., Rom 9:4) BECAUSE contrary to your errant claim that… “There was no change in covenants” the writer of Hebrews further says this…

Heb 8:7-8 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Cf. Rom 7:10; 1Cor 13:10

LLC your… “There was no change in covenants” mantra is simply shown to NOT be the case.

Well, let’s check that dirty little thing called context…

Deut 4:13-14 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might observe them in the land which you cross over to possess.

This is getting beyond bizarre… will you please provide a quote from anyone here who has made the claim that Abraham WAS the father of the Levitical law/Jewish faith?

Well, would you look at that… another case where a TEXT gets lost from the CONTEXT to push an errant PRETEXT. Consider the following verse you conveniently omit…

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.



This is WHY Paul wrote the following…

Gal 3:23-25 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.


Davo, you say the new covenant is superior to all other covenants(plural). However, you point to Hebrews which mentions a first (singular), which means there was only one(singular) covenant prior to the second.

Yes, let’s.

As Hebrews 5:6and 10 say Jesus was a priest “according to the order of Melchizedek” whose priesthood was everlasting. The Levitical law was a false teaching, and as Deut.12:12 says “the Levite who is within your gate has no portion or inheritance with you.”

Was Abraham justified by faith in the Holy Spirit or by the Levitical law?

MM, yes. The OC that God made with Abraham was the NC, not the Levitical law.


MM, as an added note, I believe that the Levitical law was the tree that bears no fruit ( the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), the tree that needed to be cut down, the branch that needed to be pruned. Those who followed it were the prodigal sons who went away from Abraham, “the father of all who believe.”


Yeah, I had these inspired words in mind…

Heb 7:22 …by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Heb 12:24 …to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Well yeah, typically in logic a second necessitates being preceded by a first… :thinking:

There’s probably a smidgen of a chance you don’t appreciate (let alone see) God cuts a number of differing covenants in the OT, BUT in terms of biblical redemption it always boils down to TWO (Jn 1:17)… of which Jesus Christ wrought a totally NEW COVENANT in His blood ( Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 2:20 ), much superior to any and all preceding covenants.

This is a prime example of your deliberate, i.e., NOT innocent nor ignorant, falsifying and debasing Scripture so as to create and peddle your own falsehood… shame on you LLC!

ANYTHING related to the old covenant, of which the Levitical system was a part, was TEMPORARY as per Gal 3:23-25 and not false as you wrongly claim — it was part of that which fulfilled a divine purpose.

AND the WHOLE reason the Levites had no portion in Israel was NOT that they peddled false teaching BUT because THEY were especially apportioned TO Yahweh BY Yahweh Himself, i.e., the Lord was THEIR portion and thus they carried no earthly heritage.

Num 3:12 “Now behold, I Myself have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the children of Israel. Therefore the Levites shall be Mine.

Deut 10:8-9 At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the Lord is his inheritance, just as the Lord your God promised him.)


Right there it says plain and simple. The first covenant was FAULTY.
Faulty= defective, erroneous, incorrect, mistaken, fallacious, untrue, FALSE
Not my words, but theirs.

The Levites were given no portion or inheritance because they were disobedient and had been cursed as a result.

As Hebrews 5:6 says “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
Hebrews 7:11 Therefore if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, what further need was there that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be called according to the order of Aaron?"


SO… you give no place to this FIRST FAULTY and FALSE covenant… and yet of this FIRST covenant you have elsewhere said…

This above is what you point to Heb 8 and claim it to be FALSE… you cancel out your own argument. Said “fault” was actually found to be in the adherents thereof by their unfaithfulness to keeping the covenant…

Heb 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—


Davo, you’re the one who brought up Hebrews 8 to make your claim, and it says the first COVENANT , meaning the covenant itself was faulty. Then you point out covenants-plural-and I agree that there was more than one covenant. The first was not the Levitical law as the writer suggests. From what I understand, symbolically, Jesus was the first and the last.

As I mentioned before, God does not change His covenant or Laws just because people are unfaithful and fail to follow. One plus one= two. If you can’t add right then you’ll fail the math course.


No… you are just messing with words because your position is left flatfooted by the Heb 8 text, i.e., the first covenant was replaced…

  1. BECAUSE God found fault with the adherents to whom it was given… Israel, and

  2. as Paul says… it served ONLY as a guardian to Israel UNTIL that which of faith came in Christ (Gal 3:12a, 23-25).

Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Heb 8:9-10, 13 proves that the writer of Hebrews had the Mosaic covenant in view when he refers to it as the FIRST covenant, WHICH Jesus replaced in the NEW covenant… — that your position has a need to deny these texts is becoming somewhat… “meh” :roll_eyes:


No. I’m not messing with words as you claim.
Hebrews 8:1 states "For if the first covenant had been faultless, then there would have been no need for a second.
Just as it says, the covenant was false, and by simple logic, those that adhere to a false covenant would be faulty as well.

  1. The followers of a false covenant - both faulty
  2. The followers of a true covenant - both true.
  3. If you do not adhere to a true covenant, the truth does not change.
    Isaiah 55:3 “Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen so that your soul may live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the sure mercies of David.”

God does not give false covenants.

The writer was talking about the Levitical law/ priesthood. (Hebrews 7:11)

According to the author, there were only two covenants.

  1. The first- the Levitical law- which he says is faulty.
  2. The second- the “new” covenant
    Obviously, something is wrong with this statement. He says nothing about the EVERLASTING covenant, which was prior to the Levitical law, given to Abraham, established under the order of Melchizedek, who was “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God and remains a priest continually.”
    As Hebrews 7:15 says, Jesus was in the “LIKENESS OF MELCHIZEDEK”.


I recently talked here about the Mosaic covenant being misguided.

But would you not agree that the New Covenant ratified in Christ’s blood goes further than the Abrahamic Covenant, since now the Holy Spirit comes inside the blood-washed believer to reside permanently?

(Or, do you think the New Covenant in Christ’s blood was only to get us back under the Abrahamic, as possibly indicated here:

Heb 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first [Mosaic aberration] covenant.)


So at the end of the day in desperation, like some other members here, you simply jettison great swathes of text deriding them as either “wrong” or “aberrant” or “misguided”, or some other pejorative slight and sleight just to protect your own dogma.

The Levitical priesthood and law ALL came under the auspices of Old Covenant, aka the Mosaic or FIRST COVENANT — that covenant WAS replaced, NOT because it was in or of itself false, BUT BECAUSE God found fault (not false as you wrongly claim) with His people who could not faithfully adhere to it — THAT is what Heb 8:7-8 ACTUALLY says!

The BETTER covenant aka the NEW covenant are one and the SAME as testified by Heb 8:6; 9:15.

It STILL comes back to your original ERRANT and FALSE claim that… “There was no change in covenants.” Again read and weep…

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Thus your constant claim that… “God does not change His covenant or Laws just because people are unfaithful and fail to follow” proves to be FAKE NEWS!! You can’t even HONESTLY quote Heb 7:11 without deliberately deleting the central portion thereof that likewise demonstrates more error in your position…

Heb 7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Through the Levitical Priesthood the people received / obtained the Law, i.e., were taught, instructed and enjoined in His ways… ‘statutes, judgments and commandmentsfor THEM.

The Mosaic Law / Covenant was THE CODIFICATION (for God’s people in transit into the land of promise) and reaffirmation of the Abrahamic covenant — to guide them safely to fruition; just reading Lev 26:1-3, 9, 40-46 et al confirms this — referencing BOTH Abraham AND Moses together in the one Law / Covenant / Promise context.


Hermano, Yes, I believe the “new” covenant = the Abrahamic covenant. They were one and the same, Father (Abraham), Son ( Jesus) and Holy Spirit. From all indications it goes as follows

  1. First covenant=new covenant=Abrahamic covenant=Mosaic covenant
    2.Second covenant = the first covenant mixed with false teachings and commandments of men= Levitical law
    3.New covenant, a return to the first.

No. the covenant itself was faulty as well as the verse clearly states. Perfection was not through the Levitical priesthood or the Levitical law.