Covenant Theology is Not Replacement Theology

[ReformedBaptist]

It is no more an attack that saying others are ignorant of your view. You description of being "virol" is out of place and sensationalistic. The fails to stand because it fails to be fair to the view it disagrees with.

It stands because you accuse the OP author and myself of playing games. WHich means malicous intent and a disrespect for important theology. Prove it mitchell, or concede the point.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Obviously mitch, this "try not to get sidetracked by disagreeing with the theology and see the point of the article" was too difficult for you.

 

[Revmitchell]

It stands because you accuse the OP author and myself of playing games. WHich means malicous intent and a disrespect for important theology. Prove it mitchell, or concede the point.

I did in fact pove it. You focused on your attempt to be sensationalistic instead of the whole of what I said. When reformed folks consistently work to present other views of being ignorant of their views it is an attack and a slap in the face. It is a debate tactic used to deflect opposing views.

 

[Revmitchell]

Obviously mitch, this "try not to get sidetracked by disagreeing with the theology and see the point of the article" was too difficult for you.

It is an absurd statement. Every detail of this issue is theology. If you are going to address why the issue op is wrong then you have to address theology. Otherwise all that is left is to agree. How slick.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It is an absurd statement. Every detail of this issue is theology. If you are going to address why the issue op is wrong then you have to address theology. Otherwise all that is left is to agree. How slick.

Discussion with you is pointless. You just can't stop falsely accusing your brethren from bad motives.

Next.

 

[Revmitchell]

Discussion with you is pointless. You just can't stop falsely accusing your brethren from bad motives.

Next.

I will be glad to when reformed brethren stop falsely accusing their brethren of being ignorant of their views. The implication is just as offensive. But I see you did not address anything else. Only one small point.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I will be glad to when reformed brethren stop falsely accusing their brethren of being ignorant of their views. The implication is just as offensive. But I see you did not address anything else. Only one small point.

Mitchell, you already came in with your attack. I was surprised by it. Your original reply was an attack. In my opinion, you become offended by the author who disagrees with your theology and what you have taught, and just reacted. That's why I am not replying to you. I don't think reasoned, honest, humble discussion is possible with you at this point.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mitchell, you already came in with your attack. I was surprised by it. Your original reply was an attack.

I know. You are trying to make my posts about things other than what I posted. Every time you call our opposing view weird, or our view of the reformed view ignorant, which is quite common, it is equally offensive. And this thread began talking about the view of each others view long before I started.

In my opinion, you become offended by the author who disagrees with your theology and what you have taught, and just reacted.

Your opinion is based on what reason? You have nothing to base if on accept your offense. It is most likely your reaction.

That's why I am not replying to you. I don't think reasoned, honest, humble discussion is possible with you at this point.

You must mean it is why you ignore the substance of my post, because you have in fact replied. If you want to start with honesty you should acknowledge that what I say is in fact correct, that reformed folks do accuse those who disagree with them of being ignorant of their doctrine as quite common. Nothing is humble about accusing ignorance as a practice.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If you want to start with honesty you should acknowledge that what I say is in fact correct, that reformed folks do accuse those who disagree with them of being ignorant of their doctrine as quite common.

This is, again, another reason why discussion the subject with you is fruitless. Until you can get a mind of think better of your brethren, you will always start with a prejudiced view.

 

[Pastor David]

Covenant Theology is much more of a "Type/Antitype" or "Physical/Spiritual" or even "Promise/Fulfilment" theology than a Replacement model. Rather than the Church replacing Israel as God's people, CT views the Church as the culmination, the fulfillment of it.

I hope this helps.

 

[Havensdad]

I address my two biggest concerns with "Dispensational" theology in this sermon:

http://www.straightwalk.org/resources/Sermon+Guard+Your+Doctrine+01.wma

Covenant theology is not "Replacement" theology: it is equalizing, inclusive theology, where God does not play favorites based on ones race.