thomas15
Well-Known Member
You seem to discount Romans 9:6-13, a passage that is no friend of your theological system.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How does a Preterist Determine what is Metaphoric and what is Literal in Prophecy
- Thread starter revmwc
- Start date
- Status
You seem to discount Romans 9:6-13, a passage that is no friend of your theological system.
Thomas,
I do not follow your point here.This section of Romans 9 is virtually foundational to what I and others believe about this topic.
Thomas...is you could expand on this maybe we could work through it and get a little closer to the bible truth.
Mandy...I think we are mostly in agreement on this.
The church is a called out assembly.
The ot people of God assembled also.
Mandy what unifies everything is being in the covenant of grace.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
It is really very simple. Abraham had sons born to him from Hagar and Sarah. Ishmael is Abrahams son but according to Romans 9 (and other olaces) he is not the heir of the covenant given to Abraham. That covenant is for the offspring of Abrahams son Isaac and then through Jacob (renamed Israel). It is not for Abrahams other sons. It is not for Isaacs sons other than Jacob (not Esau). And so forth.
You speak about the covenant of grace. While we are saved by grace through faith, just where in the Bible did Jehovah cut a covenant of grace with sinful man, be he Jew or Gentile? Covenant theologians like yourself go to great lengths to explain the nature of covenants, how one is cut, how one is ratified but they fail to show in a covenant of grace just where the Bible teaches it and who the two parties of the covenant are.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Iconoclast, before you give your cut and paste a workout, consider this nugget from covenant A-Mil theologian O. Palmer Robertson ..."But from a biblical perspective, works play a most essential role in the covenant of grace"..."Scripture consistently indicates that the final judgement of a man shall be according to works. While salvation is by faith, judgement is by works." The Christ of the Covenants pg. 56 1980 P&R Publishing Phillipsburg, NJ
On this forum I argue sola gratia and sola scriptura and our reformed brethern like yourself look to works and a covenant of grace not found in the Bible but clearly spelled out in the WCF and the ECFs.
On this forum I argue sola gratia and sola scriptura and our reformed brethern like yourself look to works and a covenant of grace not found in the Bible but clearly spelled out in the WCF and the ECFs.
Thomas,
This is a good question;
Big question..I will offer a short answer first.
[QUOTEGenesis 15
1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2And Abram said, LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8And he said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
9And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
13And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
][/QUOTE]
When the theologians speak of ...cutting a covenant.....an animal was cut or divided in half, and those who would be in covenant would pass through the divided animal....
God put Abraham to sleep and passed through Himself...verse 18 gives the explanation...God made covenant with Abraham.
Thomas....God's covenant is progressively revealed.It existed before the world was created. It is revealed in time, and shown to some men by God.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
I know the Abrahamic covenant well. This response of yours almost makes me think that you are not listening to me.
I am not sure I know what you are getting at.you said;
gen 15 answers your statement......are you asking more about this question?
I can answer this...but you might not like it,
The two parties are the triune God and the elect sheep...and this is taught in all 66 books,:thumbs:
thomas15
Well-Known Member
OK, back to square one. Where in Gen 15 is there a covenant between two parites where if an individual trusts in the Savior they will have their sins forgiven and eternal life in heaven?
I see in Gen 15/Gen 17 promises to Abraham and his seed for several things but eternal life for the gentile believer in Christ is not one of them.
hasn't it though been that God ALWAYS has His covenants based upon Grace, as NONE were able to keep the law, and the Law was not even in place until Moses?
And doesn't the new Covenant fulfull/supercede ALL prior Covenants between God and man anyways?[/QUOTE]
No not all covenants supercede others. The Noahic covenant was not superceded, God will never destroy the earth with a flood again.
The Abrahamic covenant is not superceded in the fact that the land was promised to Abraham and his seed forever, they have yet to possess it all but they will in the Messianic Kingdom.
The Davidic covenant is not superceded by another, David was promised that his son would reign over Israel from his throne as Messiah. That too has yet to come to pass but will in the Millinial Kingdom.
The Adamic covenant was not superceded a saviour would come to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind. Faith was required for salvation and grace was the means "grace through faith" saved Adam and Eve and everyone who has ever been saved.
So no one covenant does not supercede the other and Grace through faith has always and will always be the means of Slavation for all mankind.
It is odd how you stay away from this post Icon. You know that a simple thing like the dating of the Book of Revelation throws all of Preterism in disarray. It defeats it completely. But perhaps this is why you ignore this point. This book, as well as John's other writings, were written well after the destruction of Jerusalem.
No not all covenants supercede others. The Noahic covenant was not superceded, God will never destroy the earth with a flood again.
The Abrahamic covenant is not superceded in the fact that the land was promised to Abraham and his seed forever, they have yet to possess it all but they will in the Messianic Kingdom.
The Davidic covenant is not superceded by another, David was promised that his son would reign over Israel from his throne as Messiah. That too has yet to come to pass but will in the Millinial Kingdom.
The Adamic covenant was not superceded a saviour would come to pay the penalty for the sins of mankind. Faith was required for salvation and grace was the means "grace through faith" saved Adam and Eve and everyone who has ever been saved.
So no one covenant does not supercede the other and Grace through faith has always and will always be the means of Slavation for all mankind.[/QUOTE]
perhaps supercede was wrong term , but doesn't the new Covenant basically fulfill/sums up ALL prior Covenents, in a sense rolls them all up into it?
perhaps supercede was wrong term , but doesn't the new Covenant basically fulfill/sums up ALL prior Covenents, in a sense rolls them all up into it?[/QUOTE]
I would say no it doesn't as each covenant deals with a different people or group of people. The Noahic covenant was given to all mankind and isn't changed by or rolled into the Abrahamic covenant. Speaking of the Abrahamic covenant who was that covenant made between? God and God or God and Abraham?
Remember how it was done before you answer.
The Davidic covenant couldn't change the Abrahamic the covenant was specific to David's heir ruling over Israel, the Abrahamic covenant remianed in force awasn't role up into the Davidic covenant.
perhaps supercede was wrong term , but doesn't the new Covenant basically fulfill/sums up ALL prior Covenents, in a sense rolls them all up into it?[/QUOTE]
No, Israel is still a nation and always will be.
The sign of the covenant made by Jehovah with them is the keeping of the Sabbath. It is a sign for them and their generations forever. (Exodus 31)
Circumcision is still a sign of the covenant made with them.
The rainbow is still a sign to us that God will never destroy the world by a flood. It will remain that way until God makes a new earth and a new heaven, and the old earth will be destroyed by fire.
Not everything is wrapped up into one covenant.
Thomas,
The covenant of Grace is not made equally between two parties that agree, like a covenant between two humans is. so when you say this;
The Covenant of Grace......is in reality.....the fulfillment of the Covenant of Redemption made between the Father ,Son, and Spirit.
The idea of man having an equal and synergistic part in the covenant is not found in scripture.....this I believe is where many get confused at the beginning. We know this because here in Gen 15....you will notice God had abraham to be asleep when God passed through the divided animal.
It sounds as if you are looking for a one sentence that connects all the dots kind of verse.....but this is too big a topic to be contained in one verse,
Thomas let me ask you a question...How do you understand this verse in reference to your own question.....???
How are all nations blessed if as you say;
[QUOTEI see in Gen 15/Gen 17 promises to Abraham and his seed for several things but eternal life for the gentile believer in Christ is not one of them.[/QUOTE]
][/QUOTE] I think you have to come to grips with this first.
The Naoahic covenant is not just for Israel, Noah was not an Israelite but through his son Shem came the Jewish race.
There is the Mosaic covenant again with Israel.
There is as I stated the Adamic in which a savior was promised and by grace through faith all mankind can be saved. The savior came as promised and salvation remained the same by Grace through Faith.
God has and always will deal with mankind because of His grace and salvation has and always will require Faith. Adam, Noah, Abraham, David and all O.T. saints looked forward to the saviour who was coming, the promised one and because they believed in the coming Saviour that faith was counted unto them for righteousness, Grace was stil the saving agent. We look backward to the saviour who has come Jesus Christ and we place our faith in Him as the payment for our sins. Our faith is counted unto us for righteousness and grace is still the agent of salvation.
DHK,
Yes, I do have to work sometimes dhk.....oddly that keeps me from posting:laugh:
Partial Preterism is biblical. An early date would seal the deal 100%.
The date is somewhat in dispute, and some dispute the authorship;
Ken Gentry (1989)
"My confident conviction is that a solid case for a Neronic date for Revelation can be set forth from the available evidences, both internal and external. In fact, I would lean toward a date after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in late A.D.64 and before the declaration of the Jewish war in early A.D.67. A date in either A.D.65 or early A.D.66 would seem most suitable." (Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989), 336.)
“John emphasizes his anticipation of the soon occurrences of his prophecy by strategic placement of these time references. He places his boldest time statements in both the introduction and conclusion to Revelation. It is remarkable that so many recent commentators have missed it literally coming and going! The statement of expectancy is found three times in the first chapter – twice in the first three verses: Revelation 1:1,3,19. The same idea is found four times in his concluding remarks: Revelation 22:6,7,12,20. It is as if John carefully bracketed the entire work to avoid any confusion.” (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 21-22).
“Think of it: If these words in these verses do not indicate that John expected the events to occur soon, what words could John have used to express such? How could he have said it more plainly?” (The Beast of Revelation; Tyler, TX; ICE, 1982; p. 24).
"It seems indisputably clear that the book of Revelation must be dated in the reign of Nero Caesar, and consequently before his death in June, A.D.68. He is the sixth king; the short-lived rule of the seventh king (Galba) "has not yet come." (Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989; 158.)
you say;
it is a whole seperate thread in itself. It is disputed. I am not certain yet.
The partial preterist view does not depend on the early date as you claim.
I think you are just repeating what you heard or were taught without examining other sources.
- Status