Covenant of Works

[ReverendRV]

It would sound like some under the wrath

God is not a man in any way shape or form He uses temporal created things to help us understanding his unseen power of faith But God is not dying corrupted man as was Jesus the Son of man

Temporal visual thing in the place of our invisible eternal God the abomination of desolation .

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (Son of man, Jesus ) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

We shouldn't change this Thread to a discussion about the GodMan...

 

[Ladodgers6]

Failure in Paradise

The Covenant of Works
Part 1
​

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever believes in should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "Repent and be baptist everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38). These are classic verses that summarize the Gospel. They proclaim the good news to us about how we can be saved from our sin.

These verses, and others like them, hold a dear place in our hearts. The Gospel comforts us in times of doubt, and it encourages us when we are weary. We sometimes cross-stitch these verses to hang on our wall, make then the back round on our computer, and tape them up in our workplace. They are comforting reminders of the great salvation that we have in Christ. And yet these verses raise the question: Hoe can this be? Hoe is it possible for depraved sinners to be saved merely through Faith? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross? What did Christ do so that we could have eternal life by believing in him? What is necessary for sinful man or woman to be redeemed?

In answer to these questions, we may first go to one of Paul's epistles or to a passage in the Gospels; we could certainly find the answers there. There is another place, however, to which one can turn to find answers to these very questions, namely, the opening chapters of Genesis. This may come as a surprise to a lot of people. We understand how important the first few chapters of Genesis are with respect to creation. But how do they preach the Gospel?

The Apostolic preaching of the Gospel is the bridge that brings us to God as Savior; it is paved and clearly marked. But the pillars on this bridge, which are rooted deep into the riverboat below, belong to Genesis 1-3. The streaming water may hide the pillars from our eyes at times; yet, without the Genesis pillars, the Gospel viaduct would begin to crumble beneath our feet, hurling us headfirst into the depths below.

Genesis 1-3 forms the essential foundation for the Gospel, especially because it reveals the Covenant of Works. This doctrine of the Covenant of Works teaches us more about the perfect work of Christ and, in so doing, bolsters up our assurance of salvation.
​

What is the Covenant of Works? ​

The doctrine of the (CoW) has a distinguished pedigree. While the concept of (CoW) is found in writings as early as Augustine (354-430), robust formulations of the doctrine were taught in the time of the Reformation by theologians such as Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83) and Caspar Olevianus (1536-87), authors of the Heigelberg Catechism (1563). In his Larger Catechism (1562), Ursinus explicitly equated the (CoW) to the Law, which "requires our perfect obedience to God" and "promises eternal life to those who keep it," and equates the Covenant of Grace to the Gospel (Promise), which "shows us the fulfillment in Christ of the righteousness that the Law requires" and "promises eternal life freely because of Christ to those who believe in him." Olevianus taught the same doctrine in his 1567 Vester Grund. He spoke of a legal covenant of works with Adam as the federal head of humanity, in whom the Law was "implanted" as a matter of "human nature". This (CoW) stands in contrast to the (CoG) , which declares the "Surety who completely satisfies the just judgement of God for us."

By the 1640s, the doctrine of the (CoW) was officially recognized and codified in the confessional standards produced by the Westminster Assembly. The (WSC), for example, defines this covenant as follows: "When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death" (Q&A 12). Likewise the (WCF) asserts, "The first covenant made with Adam was a (CoW), wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience" (7.2). Consistent with these statements, Louis Berkhof says that the (CoW) is God's commitment to Adam, as Federal Head, wherein life is conditioned on perfect obedience, and [eternal] death is threatened upon the disobedience of eating the forbidden fruit.

There are four aspects of this definition that are helpful for us to flesh out a bit. First God is the one who made the Covenant, and he did so at creation. For Adam and Eve to be made in the image of God is for them to be in a Covenant with God. At creation, God commits himself to his creation to sustain them and to be their God. So also, being created in the image of God by necessity obligates Adam to God. In Genesis 1:26, God fashions male and female in his image so that they may have dominion, which is an obligation. God's act of creation generates a relationship with implicit obligations, namely, to imitate God. God's covenantal commitment to his human creations, then, is evident in Genesis 1, even before the narrower command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. This prohibition focuses the covenant relationship on a specific test, but the covenant is bigger than this one command.

@Mr GLee​

 

[makesends]

Then I encourage you to do more research. I will, however, concede one possibility: that of antithesis. If unknown forces are bearing on a person that would otherwise incline him/her to choose and act toward one given response and s/he choose the exact opposite, then s/he would be choosing/acting in antithesis.

This is always a potentiality in scripture. God tells Cain not to do what he is about to do. We know he is compelled to murder, and God's exhortation is intended to highlight that very problem (his bondage to sin) but God's words would be meaningless were it not possible for Cain to also act in complete opposition to everything externally and everything internally bearing on him to commit murder.

I do not think you can prove humans must regard unknown influences.

So, they can disregard maybe 10% or on a good day maybe 77% and on a really, really, good day maybe 98.6% but never 100%.

Incorrect. Creation is filled with unrealized potential and it is so by God's design. Any god can make things work only one way. That's not much of a god. I can make action figures do only and exactly what I make them to do. That does not make me a god. much less a God. This has always been one of the problems with strict determinism; in its effort to assert God's omnipotence and sovereignty it makes Him ordinary and not particularly mighty.

I never said it did. What it does say is that causes other than God AND their contingencies exist. Look up the definition of "contingency." Then re-read WCF 3.1 to better understand what the authors were really saying.

Yep

Yep

Nope

Correct.

A first causing all other causes is not strict or meticulous determinism. Strict determinism is that God causes all causes meticulously. First causality and meticulous causality are not identical and should not be conflated.

Knowledge is not cause. Intent is not cause. There is, of course, no divien cause absent divine knowledge and intent but the three are not synonymous.

You are wrong.

Words have meaning and they should be called what they are called regardless of others' responses.

Yep. And nothing I posted should be construed to say otherwise. God certainly knew all the causes His cause would cause, and He caused His caused to establish all those causes...., knowing humans themselves are causal because that is how He made them.

I have started another thread, to answer this, since this is a divergence from the OP. https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/concerning-determinism-are.1353/

 

[Mr GLee]

You might want to consider the implications of being "made in the image of God".

I would offer. I think there is a difference with image and likeness. Image unseen qualities as the eternal . Likeness the temporal things seen

A person must be careful. It's easy to confuse the things of God the unseen eternal, with the temporal what the eyes see


Peter in Mathew 16 performed kind of lie when seduced by Satan. God rebuked Satan and said you are a offence to me you favor or savior the temporal things of men seen and not the eternal things of God not seen.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

They both must be mixed or no gospel understanding according to Hebrew 4:1-2.

Those that had no faith (none) by which they could believe God. When they saw what the preaching of gospel produced (living faith) They looked to the temporal and blasphemed God. Saying the gods come down in the likeness of men. The formula for Roman mythology, serving the things seen the temporal, ignoring the Gods understand revealed in the parables, the eternal

Acts 14: 7-14 And there they preached the gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith (power of God) to be healed, Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out

The 20/20 prescription needed to rightly divide or interpret the parables is a must . Not a opinion

2 Corinthians 4:17-18 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

One of the better study tools given needed to rightly divide the parables.

 

[makesends]

I would offer. I think there is a difference with image and likeness. Image unseen qualities as the eternal . Likeness the temporal things seen

A person must be careful. It's easy to confuse the things of God the unseen eternal, with the temporal what the eyes see


Peter in Mathew 16 performed kind of lie when seduced by Satan. God rebuked Satan and said you are a offence to me you favor or savior the temporal things of men seen and not the eternal things of God not seen.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

They both must be mixed or no gospel understanding according to Hebrew 4:1-2.

Those that had no faith (none) by which they could believe God. When they saw what the preaching of gospel produced (living faith) They looked to the temporal and blasphemed God. Saying the gods come down in the likeness of men. The formula for Roman mythology, serving the things seen the temporal, ignoring the Gods understand revealed in the parables, the eternal

Acts 14: 7-14 And there they preached the gospel. And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith (power of God) to be healed, Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out

The 20/20 prescription needed to rightly divide or interpret the parables is a must . Not a opinion

2 Corinthians 4:17-18 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

One of the better study tools given needed to rightly divide the parables.

Be careful of going beyond what Scripture says.

I, too, understand a huge difference between what the human sees in the temporal flesh, and what is unseen (to us, as yet) in the eternal. But can you show that 'unseen vs seen' is what is meant by 'image vs likeness'? You here have only asserted it, then gone off into an exposition of 'unseen vs seen'.

 

[His clay]

The best I could do at this point as so much has been posted, is to respond to the OP. Or read it to get the thrust of the discussion. On page 9 post #179 there is a link to the pdf presenting a counter. In the thread following that are assertions and counters to the assertions, taken fro the pdf. We are awaiting the second counter to the covenant of works which will deal with a different aspect. Since you are short of time, and this thread is already 20 pages long, you may want to hit a few points here and there, or none at all, as time permits. Reading the whole thing as it exists has now become a lengthy process and getting longer. It probably could have been presented in a way that is reduced by 75% and still covered all the ground.

Your input has been wanted due to the fact, at least from my pov, that you are so widely informed, and present things with precision, and in a way that, while not always brief, covers all the corners and edges. I don't mind length if I am gaining knowledge and insight and the piece maintains interest, and are irrefutably solidly biblical based and supported--which I find yours do.

Thank you for your detailed pointers. I read the OP, and I quickly read through the pdf. I have deemed it not worth the time.

I'll add one very quick point. This concerns the issue of the supposed lack of scripture for the CoW. There are levels of various doctrines, and by that I mean that some are absolutely (1) explicitly mentioned in scripture. (2) Some are necessarily implied in scripture. (3) Some are possible inferences in scripture. And finally, (4) the lowest level are those that are in accord with scripture, but it really boils down to a sanctified imagination.

The Trinity does not have one verse that explicitly (lvl 1) teaches the doctrine, but we still have several verses, that when combined, form a doctrine that is necessarily implied by scripture (lvl2). Further, sometimes people make hard stipulations over specific wording, and this is supposed to point out that scripture doesn't teach that specific wording. However, scripture does teach the main idea, rather than the wording stated. Over-zealous semantic particularity is the culprit sometimes in theological debate/discussion.

 

[Eleanor]

Thank you for your detailed pointers. I read the OP, and I quickly read through the pdf. I have deemed it not worth the time.

I'll add one very quick point. This concerns the issue of the supposed lack of scripture for the CoW. There are levels of various doctrines, and by that I mean that some are absolutely (1) explicitly mentioned in scripture. (2) Some are necessarily implied in scripture. (3) Some are possible inferences in scripture. And finally, (4) the lowest level are those that are in accord with scripture, but it really boils down to a sanctified imagination.

The Trinity does not have one verse that explicitly (lvl 1) teaches the doctrine,

Jn 3:1-15 comes pretty close (vv. 5, 14-15). Who but God regenerates (gives eternal life)?

but we still have several verses, that when combined, form a doctrine that is necessarily implied by scripture (lvl2). Further, sometimes people make hard stipulations over specific wording, and this is supposed to point out that scripture doesn't teach that specific wording. However, scripture does teach the main idea, rather than the wording stated. Over-zealous semantic particularity is the culprit sometimes in theological debate/discussion.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thank you for your detailed pointers. I read the OP, and I quickly read through the pdf. I have deemed it not worth the time.

I'll add one very quick point. This concerns the issue of the supposed lack of scripture for the CoW. There are levels of various doctrines, and by that I mean that some are absolutely (1) explicitly mentioned in scripture. (2) Some are necessarily implied in scripture. (3) Some are possible inferences in scripture. And finally, (4) the lowest level are those that are in accord with scripture, but it really boils down to a sanctified imagination.

The Trinity does not have one verse that explicitly (lvl 1) teaches the doctrine, but we still have several verses, that when combined, form a doctrine that is necessarily implied by scripture (lvl2). Further, sometimes people make hard stipulations over specific wording, and this is supposed to point out that scripture doesn't teach that specific wording. However, scripture does teach the main idea, rather than the wording stated. Over-zealous semantic particularity is the culprit sometimes in theological debate/discussion.

I think he is Seth...

 

[Arial]

I think he is Seth...

Or Civic.

 

[makesends]

Over-zealous semantic particularity is the culprit sometimes in theological debate/discussion.

Well put.

 

[makesends]

Going to go do the edit now.

P.S. It did edti. You must have quoted from it before I did the edit. Though this post showed up in my alerts as being posted at around 5:30 p.m. CST and I edited this morning or early afternoon.

Being 'the boss' carries certain privileges !!

Next morning!!? I am given a very limited time (like 15 minutes if I remember right) or it's too late!


Wish the Self-Determinists would apply this to the notion of them being the sole determiners of their own choices.

 

[Arial]

Being 'the boss' carries certain privileges !!

Next morning!!? I am given a very limited time (like 15 minutes if I remember right) or it's too late!


Wish the Self-Determinists would apply this to the notion of them being the sole determiners of their own choices.

I jumped to a conclusion when I first read the post not realizing who Guy was responding to---and because ofd things that have been said of me before though not by @Eleanor. That is what shocked me and caused the reaction. It wasn't until later when I was reading through posts when I realized my mistake and thought "Oh my gosh! Get that out of there before Eleanor sees it." I thought/hoped I beat her to it. Yep. Advantages to being admin. Wouldn't call it the boss, but I know what you mean.

 

[donadams]

God initiated each covenant and the mediator always remains on earth mediating the covenant except for Christ who made Peter His personal representative and vicar! (Matt 16:18-19) with the keys of jurisdictional authority over the kingdom or new covenant church!

Adam
(Marriage covenant)

Noah
(Family covenant)

Abraham
(Tribal covenant)

Moses:
(National covenant)

Jesus Christ:
(Universal covenant)

New and eternal covenant founded by Jesus Christ! Matt 16:18

Universal (Catholic)
World, universal, all men

Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. ( catholic universal) All men!

Lk 2:31 prepared before the face of all (catholic) people. All men!

Jn 1:29 lamb of God who takes way the sins of the world. All men!

Jn 3:16 for God so loved the world

1 Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. All men!

Lk 2: 10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. All men!

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. (All people universal) All men!

1 Tim 2:5 one mediator

Jn 10:16 One new covenant church

Only Jesus Christ has authority to found the church on Peter and the apostles! Matt 16:18-19 Matt 18:18
Jn 20:21 eph 2:20

All others are heretical sects the tradition of men!

Christ is king and established a kingdom!

Obedience to the apostles who have the jurisdictional authority to govern the church and administer the kingdom is obedience to Christ!

Kingdom

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

the holy Catholic Church

Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.


Matthew 5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Lk 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: (plural Peter and his successors)
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Jesus Christ is king!

 

[His clay]

I jumped to a conclusion when I first read the post not realizing who Guy was responding to---and because ofd things that have been said of me before though not by @Eleanor. That is what shocked me and caused the reaction. It wasn't until later when I was reading through posts when I realized my mistake and thought "Oh my gosh! Get that out of there before Eleanor sees it." I thought/hoped I beat her to it. Yep. Advantages to being admin. Wouldn't call it the boss, but I know what you mean.

I have done that before as well. With multiple people involved, sometimes it is easy to get the wrong context.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I find no covenant of works in Scripture.
There is the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants mentioned in Scripture (and a couple of other personal covenants among God's people) but no covenant of works. That is a Constantinian Gentile church fabrication.

 

[Arial]

I find no covenant of works in Scripture.
There is the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants mentioned in Scripture (and a couple of other personal covenants among God's people) but no covenant of works. That is a Constantinian Gentile church fabrication.

Look harder, using the definition of a covenant instead of looking only for the word "covenant." But even in the ones you mentioned, the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works---an "if"/"then" covenant. The "if" was nothing but works required by the Israelites.

Your continueous slander of all recognition of covenant with Gentile and Jew, and all opposition to your way of thinking, as Constantinian Gentile Church fabrication is issued with never a proof of what you say. As it is presented as a historical fact, it behooves you to present the historical facts, every time you say it. Otherwise it simply shows angry bias against Gentiles. And since you probably are a Gentile, as you have said you are not Jewish, this anger is highly suspect as not really having anything to do with what you promote concerning covenant, but something else entirely. Which also makes all you promote in that regard, as not being an actual search for truth, or passion for truth, but a way of screaming at us.

In other words, you are constantly undermining your own witness.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Look harder, using the definition of a covenant instead of looking only for the word "covenant." But even in the ones you mentioned, the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works---an "if"/"then" covenant. The "if" was nothing but works required by the Israelites.

Your continueous slander of all recognition of covenant with Gentile and Jew, and all opposition to your way of thinking, as Constantinian Gentile Church fabrication is issued with never a proof of what you say. As it is presented as a historical fact, it behooves you to present the historical facts, every time you say it. Otherwise it simply shows angry bias against Gentiles. And since you probably are a Gentile, as you have said you are not Jewish, this anger is highly suspect as not really having anything to do with what you promote concerning covenant, but something else entirely. Which also makes all you promote in that regard, as not being an actual search for truth, or passion for truth, but a way of screaming at us.

In other words, you are constantly undermining your own witness.

The same attitude Israel had with the prophets God sent them.
But I know you completely misunderstand me.

 

[Arial]

The same attitude Israel had with the prophets God sent them.
But I know you completely misunderstand me.

I do not misunderstand you. But the attitude that matches that of the Jews in Jesus's day, is yours. A bitter jealousy that Gentiles should find favor with God along with them. And you are not even a Jew according to what you have said. Though you have also said you were not a Gentile and refuse to clarify that, as in biblical language, there are only Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles sometimes being called pagans.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

New forum member here.

I am writing on the Covenant of Works and distilled four conclusions about the C.O.W. from my reading. (Fesko/Abendroth/Grudem/Calvin and a some others.) I’m interested to see if my summaries are correct - or if in error, what is in error. One of the admins here saw my posts on another forum and thought I would get more feedback here.

Here is the first of the four conclusions. i appreciate your reviews, comments, observations and suggestions - it is important to me to understand and accurately represent the doctrine of the C.O.W.

Conclusion #1: Preconditions and Probation

“Adam had to, over a probationary period of time, perform “works” of righteousness by meeting the conditions of personal, perfect and perpetual obedience before God would allow Adam to eat from the tree of life.”

Sub Points:

1. Adam was given an undisclosed period of time (called “probation”) to prove whether he would demonstrate “personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience” to God – or disobey God and sin.

2. Only after the successful demonstration of these works of “personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience” during the time of his “probation,” would Adam have proven his perfect righteousness, earned eternal life, and be allowed to eat to the tree of life and thereby live forever.

is this correct?

Pure Religious FICTION based on NOTHING.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I do not misunderstand you. But the attitude that matches that of the Jews in Jesus's day, is yours. A bitter jealousy that Gentiles should find favor with God along with them.

You misunderstand me because you don't know what I know. I am not jealous. I am not part of the Constantinian church that has moved away from its Hebrew roots and nullified the things of God regarding salvation and other particulars revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures from Matthew to Revelation.
Such as the false theology that Gentiles by becoming born-again are now in the Hebrew Covenants. They are not.
The false theology that Gentiles have replaced Israel in the economy of God's salvation.
The arrogant declarations that Israel is no longer God's Chosen people, and that distinction now falls of Gentiles. Another lie.
The fact that Gentiles have stolen Israel's covenants, prophecies, and promises as well as their inheritance with God and made them their own. Another lie.
The fact that Gentiles have historically separated themselves from a salvation founded upon Israel and have created their own religion and they don't even know it because of the false beliefs of all the above contributing to that lying conclusion that Gentiles are the be all and a bag of chips in things having to do with salvation.
I am not jealous. I am disgusted. And I know judgment is coming upon the Gentile church and there's nothing to stop it. It will come. Looking forward to that I asked in a recent thread if anyone had ever thought about the effect the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 would have upon the Gentile church and the responses were dismal and disappointing. No one has considered this question because in their minds they all believe they won't be here because of the false theology of a rapture taking them all away. I find this an incredibly sad commentary on their false expectations of a rapture that will never happen, and when the institution finds there is no rapture what their response will be against Israel. No doubt they will be aligned with the nations God brings against Israel at Armageddon and even see evidence of that betrayal today.

And you are not even a Jew according to what you have said.

Are you sure? isn't the false theology of the Constantinian Gentile church believe they are now "spiritual Israel?" So why do you believe Gentiles are "spiritual Israel" instead of natural Israel BECOMING spiritual Israel through the Holy Spirit dwelling within them? Which is it?

Though you have also said you were not a Gentile and refuse to clarify that, as in biblical language,

Maybe I'm a Samaritan. Or a Half-Jew. Or 1/24th Jew? Or 1/128th Jew? Maybe I'm a mutt with Hebrew blood in my ancestral history? And if so and God keeps covenant with the Hebrews and I am born again, maybe that's the basis of my new birth? God did scatter the Jewish people at least three times in their history. Maybe every German, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Indian, Scot, Brit, Italian, Romanian, Mexican, Spanish, etc., who considers themselves Gentile and is born again has Hebrew blood in their family somewhere in their ancestral history but just don't know it? God keeps His promises, and the covenant of salvation IS with the Hebrew people, the seed of Abraham.

there are only Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles sometimes being called pagans.

Yes, and if the above is correct and every so-called Gentile who is born again has Hebrew blood in their ancestral family history, then it IS "Jew" and Gentile and one group possess ALL the covenants and promises and the other group doesn't. What a fascinating thought. Maybe the Two Witnesses may have something to say about that. There are no blurred lines between these two groups. One is definitely of God and the other is definitely not. Good and evil. Right and wrong. True and false. Truth and lie. Light and darkness.
The Lord knows them that are His, and by the same token the Lord knows them that are NOT. How else will will God go to war? It will not be against backsliders who've tripped up. It will be against those who do not have the Holy Spirit of Promise because they are NOT His, never have been, never will.
How climatic is that?