For starters his comment about being a leaky dispensationalist (you missed I said that in my previous post, right?). MacArthur sees the inherent problems with dispensationalism (the separation of Israel and the Church), but it is the premillennial position that keeps him in the dispensational camp. He as spoken about progressive dispensationalism and seems comfortable with it, but I do not know whether he has gone into that camp. I wonder if he has read George Eldon Ladd's work on classical premillennialism. Classic premillennialism does not work within dispensationalism (because it denies the rapture), but it is an entry level position for many who leave dispensationalism. I doubt MacArthur will make the change though, or at least not publicly. It is hard to make that type of change at 73 years old and after decades of ministry as a dispensationalist.
-
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!
The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
For starters his comment about being a leaky dispensationalist (you missed I said that in my previous post, right?). MacArthur sees the inherent problems with dispensationalism (the separation of Israel and the Church), but it is the premillennial position that keeps him in the dispensational camp. He as spoken about progressive dispensationalism and seems comfortable with it, but I do not know whether he has gone into that camp. I wonder if he has read George Eldon Ladd's work on classical premillennialism. Classic premillennialism does not work within dispensationalism (because it denies the rapture), but it is an entry level position for many who leave dispensationalism. I doubt MacArthur will make the change though, or at least not publicly. It is hard to make that type of change at 73 years old and after decades of ministry as a dispensationalist.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
No. That's why I said that I am not sure whether he has embraced PD. If he has then he has tried to bridge the gap between Israel and the Church. Do you have information to share on whether he is PD or not?
preachinjesus
This an one of the best posts I have seen on BB.You correctly isolated the error, you also explained your point of view clearly.
You offered a very gracious response to that unprovoked and nasty verbal attack.
If Abigal signed up on BB should could not have handled that cyber-bully attack....and dealt with the spirit of Nabal being expressed...in such a graceful fashion:thumbsup::applause:
Exactly....if anything ...he owes you a major apology,as well as your congregation.
With any view or belief there are many versions of that belief.There are different persons with different understanding and training..of course there are differences:thumbsup:
there are not many...perhaps some.
Again...you are spot on.
This is why we can offer links , to copy and paste and discuss.That promotes healthy discussion and growth which should be profitable.
If your first post was not trampled upon, but rather read and understood correctly it would not have come to this....
You qualified your remark by the word reasonable,and then showed why it is ultimately inconsistent.You did not say there could be a scattering of people who hold mixed ideas.
You reinforce it here.
good one....
Oh yes for sure!!!
It is totally indefensible and vulgar!
Yes they are.In fact even their opponents speak well of them.
Oh yes, for sure.Sad as it is.
This shows your faithful labour as a Pastor sorting through all the ideas to get the best perspective you can come up with.
Those who despise God given teachers and teaching offer nothing but shared ignorance as they never test their conclusions by what others have seen.!
You demonstrate the proper method of considering other views and positions...without making a strawman, or twisting a persons words, or saying that you think, they might be implying something...that the person themselves does not actually say.
Sadly, this might happen again,as some seem given to it....i would have no trouble sitting under your ministry of the word, knowing that you are working at being faithful in the word...not trying to show -off on a website.
Yes......this is it...case closed.Game, set, match.
This is very well written and crystal clear.Each of us can learn from this post,especially those , Myself included who get heated up from time to time.
yes, you used much restraint in not expanding on it.
Which is also fine.And i have no problem if at anytime you spot what you see as error in my posts,offering scriptural correction.I have never claimed infallability, or to be the answer to all who oppose God's grace.
I am one person,and will post whatever i see that needs to be posted to the best of my ability.Nobody knowingly posts error.The fact that i offer many links is that I have time to find them and promote them whoever is serious about improving their understanding.
Those who run off at the mouth, but never engages these links lose all credibility,
Again...you did not keep silent and were just being objective which is very commendable.
That is a consideration for sure.
Well said. if we ever have an opportunity to meet, i would like to ask you questions about some things concerning early church history,as I think you had recently posted this was an area that you were well studied on.
This an one of the best posts I have seen on BB.You correctly isolated the error, you also explained your point of view clearly.
You offered a very gracious response to that unprovoked and nasty verbal attack.
If Abigal signed up on BB should could not have handled that cyber-bully attack....and dealt with the spirit of Nabal being expressed...in such a graceful fashion:thumbsup::applause:
Exactly....if anything ...he owes you a major apology,as well as your congregation.
With any view or belief there are many versions of that belief.There are different persons with different understanding and training..of course there are differences:thumbsup:
there are not many...perhaps some.
Again...you are spot on.
This is why we can offer links , to copy and paste and discuss.That promotes healthy discussion and growth which should be profitable.
.
If your first post was not trampled upon, but rather read and understood correctly it would not have come to this....
You qualified your remark by the word reasonable,and then showed why it is ultimately inconsistent.You did not say there could be a scattering of people who hold mixed ideas.
You reinforce it here.
,
good one....
Oh yes for sure!!!
It is totally indefensible and vulgar!
Yes they are.In fact even their opponents speak well of them.
.
Oh yes, for sure.Sad as it is.
This shows your faithful labour as a Pastor sorting through all the ideas to get the best perspective you can come up with.
.
Those who despise God given teachers and teaching offer nothing but shared ignorance as they never test their conclusions by what others have seen.!
You demonstrate the proper method of considering other views and positions...without making a strawman, or twisting a persons words, or saying that you think, they might be implying something...that the person themselves does not actually say.
Sadly, this might happen again,as some seem given to it....i would have no trouble sitting under your ministry of the word, knowing that you are working at being faithful in the word...not trying to show -off on a website.
Yes......this is it...case closed.Game, set, match.
This is very well written and crystal clear.Each of us can learn from this post,especially those , Myself included who get heated up from time to time.
.
yes, you used much restraint in not expanding on it.
.
Which is also fine.And i have no problem if at anytime you spot what you see as error in my posts,offering scriptural correction.I have never claimed infallability, or to be the answer to all who oppose God's grace.
I am one person,and will post whatever i see that needs to be posted to the best of my ability.Nobody knowingly posts error.The fact that i offer many links is that I have time to find them and promote them whoever is serious about improving their understanding.
Those who run off at the mouth, but never engages these links lose all credibility,
Again...you did not keep silent and were just being objective which is very commendable.
That is a consideration for sure.
Well said. if we ever have an opportunity to meet, i would like to ask you questions about some things concerning early church history,as I think you had recently posted this was an area that you were well studied on.
Last edited by a moderator:
John MacArthur preached a message saying that how you view israel determines your endtime position....his message was answered , i believe it was Michael Horton...who answered exactly to this message...i will find and post the links later...as i have to go to staples to get a new mouse....:smilewinkgrin: then again....you and DHK will not listen because you do not need any links:thumbsup: but i will post the messages for everyone else:thumbsup:
Last edited by a moderator:
DHK...I will answer your dispensational and covenant denying ideas later as i am only on break now....it will take me some time to go over your post and offer the proper scriptures that answer it. I could offer you some links...but you do not need them according to your own testimony.
saturneptune
New Member
I think it unworthy of a pastor to call anyone a fool. The words I chose were not the best, and I apologize. I do not want the focal point of this problem to cause problems between us. I will admit, Calvinists would most likely be covenant and Ariminians dispy. I do not have as good of a handle on the difference of dispy and covenant as I do Calvinism.What does bother me (outside of the mischaracterizations and failure to realize there are other options) is when others trivialize the conversation.
I guess I have it up to my last nerve of "Christians" calling other posters, either implied or directly, heretics, false doctrine supporters, idol worshippers, or some such other nonsense. We are of the Baptist faith, and I with all my heart believe it to be as close to a NT church as we can get today, otherwise I would not be one.
I was a Presbyterian for 25 years, and have been a Baptist for 35. While the denominations are similar, they are not the same. It seems like some try to make the Baptist faith into some sort of deformed creature that resembles the Presbyterian church. Its like putting a round peg in a square hole, or, as has been argued, a dispy Calvinist.
I still carry around many of the memories of the Presbyterian church in me. I do not like their theory of baptism, hierarchies, or elder government. I think a local church should decide its own destiny. There is no need for a presbytery to help select a pastor, or decide what one can and cannot do to the church building.
If you ignore the two or three phrases I used in your posts that would have been better unsaid, I think you will find that all I am trying to do is stop the nonsense and destructiveness of one poster.
saturneptune
New Member
Here are the steps you will use.
1. Google dispensationalism and covenant theology.
2. Roll some dice to see which one to go to.
3. Copy
4. Paste
5. Type in "you believe in false doctrine"
6. Type in "you are in error"
7. Type in "after much research"
saturneptune
New Member
The reason DHK will not listen is because you have nothing to say. You are the focus of the problem, regardless of my rants. My rants are in response to your deliberate degrading of other posters and lack of respect for other opinions. I have no idea which way it will occur, but either you or I are going to end up banned.
Last edited by a moderator:
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Ok, sorry I missed the part where you said that you were not sure. And I missed the part where you stated that you thought MacArthur might be PD. I just simply assumed that you were doing what just about every other critic of pre-mil dispensationalism on this board does and that is either make up stuff about dispies or repeat stuff others have made up about dispies.
Now that we have my sincere appologies out of the way, what you are saying about MacArthur having issues with dispensational teaching about a separation between the NT church and OT Israel is basically, you know, false. But don't take my word for it, read MacArthur and instead next time your speak for someone else and consider a primary source from that individual. For example, don't depend on Kim Riddlebarger quoting Alva McClain in context, because if you do, someone who reads McClain will hand you your posterior on a plate.
MacArthur has written a full set of stand alone NT commentaries, a study Bible and many other books. Probably one of the best selling theologians at this time. Maybe consider expanding your horizons my friend. Personally I wouldn't put him in the PD camp at all. Interesting bit of trivia, Jonny Mac is good friends with RC Sproul. I don't know how he does it.
thomas15
Well-Known Member
Saturneptune, I will get kicked off this board way before you do.
Next:
Icon, you can relax, as of today you have my vote for "Least Original and most starved of Attention Poster of the Year Award 2013" sewed up as far as I'm concerned. :tongue3:
I do not make things up. Being human I can err, but I try to be honest in debate.
thomas15 said:
Well, so much for exonerating me earlier. I heard this out of MacArthur's mouth. I suppose that is not much for a primary source. I should have recorded it and put it on YouTube for all to hear. Something tells me that still would not be good enough for you. It was during a Q&A when I was in Bible college. JM was asked about dispensationalism's separation of Israel and the Church. Specifically he was asked if he agreed with Scofield and Chafer who believed that the two will be separated in the eternal state. His answer (and I am forced to paraphrase since the Q&A was live) was that he was not willing to take a firm stand on that particular distinctive of dispensationalism. Progressive dispensationalism was still rather new back then; being honed by the crew at DTS. So, what I had to say is, basically, true. Is this where I accept your apology again?
thomas15 said:
First, I am not your friend. Second I am quite comfortable with my horizons as they are.
Ha! I am pretty sure my name is heading to the top of that list. Maybe we can make a side bet? Oh, wait. I do not gamble.
quite the contrary...i have heard JM many times,and still listen to him.
i was calvinistic and dispensational at one time.....still have my dallas seminary casstettes......S.Lewis Johnson.william mcrae...etc.
pentecosts things to come is still on my book shelf.along with walvoord,and chafer, and ryrie....So why would i not respect him?
he is a greatly gifted speaker ,pastor ,and teacher...and does not back down like many do today.
Because my eschatological calendar is in the process of being revised, does not mean i do not respect dispy brothers DHK....Revmac used to post a consistent premill position here on BB......Spurgeon was historic premill, i can enjoy ladds writings as well....
Now when I hear JM...i have to just translate some of his mistaken references.....He knows Jesus is Lord...:thumbs::wavey:
And as the awards are being considered.....you are nominated for BB ostrich of the year, for making bold statements and crass remarks then hiding instead of offering any meaningful interaction:laugh::laugh::wavey:
When I read commentaries, whether they be MacArther, Barnes or otherwise, I read critically, sifting out the good from the bad, and always comparing what they have to the Scripture. Some of what MacArthur says is good. I like his books on the Charismatic movement. But I usually just ignore what he says on Calvinism.
DHK
There are no NT churches in the OT. That is why there is a type,and anti type.
The Ot saints were a called out assembly, a Holy nation{at least the elect remnant was} it was not the Nt church however, until the last day when their will only be one assembled body...not two separate bodies,as dispensationalism wrongly proclaims.
Although Jesus builds His church NT....there is a continuity ..a Covenant continuity ..the gentiles in Cornith were told that the Ot saints were..our fathers..you can deny it if you want,but this is what the bible teaches on it,as well as yesterdays post to you.
10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
There has always been law,and there has always been grace....conscience, human government, this false distinction was an attempt to help people understand redemptive history, but it was not as accurate as it should have been.
God has stayed with His one and only plan of salvation..it happens just as he purposed it to.
While I know the position you are offering...I now understand that the rapture happens at the last day ..as Jesus explained in jn 6...i will raise them up..on the last day..he repeats it over and over.
No..yada ,yada God always saves on the basis of His eternal covenant made know to man starting in Gen 3;15,the promised seed..
take some of the books off the shelf in your library and look at it afresh..
How about the great work of God in the History of redemption by Jonathan Edwards...to start with.
This statement is sad and for someone to be teaching this to others is even worse.Both jn 6 and heb 2 , heb 10 speak of the Covenant of Redemption as it unfolds in redemptive history,and finds fulfillment now in the new covenant which christians are under right now...
DHK...tell me you do not believe that the new covenant has not happened yet,and is only future for national Israel?
tell me that you do not hold that the church is a parenthesis.and a mystery form of the kingdom? but not the kingdom?
It does not have to be the logical conclusion.of covenant continuity,if rightly understood.That is why I am a RB ..not a padeo.
In your other post you falsely said padeos teach baptismal regeneration, you have now amended that now.
This is one area ..and ecclesiology is the second why i am not a padeo.
To suggest that they do not make a biblical case is error DHK....they do.
I just understand that they make an error at these two points..They take the Ot model...which did indeed have covenant children in the flesh, and try to superimpose it on the NT.
That is a wrong view,yet you try and make a biblical case.
Although you will not listen to pastors who would offer you correction,from the gk. text..not man made ideas.
I call myself a baptist because I am a baptist. martin luther was right on justification by faith alone,but i do not call myself a lutheran do you?
baptists are not reformers..reformers came out from rome.
the reformers restored truth from the RCC and also corrected the errors of the ana baptists.....
I take truth from wherever it comes from,whoever came closest to scripture. if the reformers understood God's covenants better than baptists i will draw on them. Some baptists..the Apostles and early church,and later the particular baptists see the truth.
Anyone who is saved is Saved by God placing them in saving union with Christ.Christ who covenanted with the Father and the Spirit before the world was .
If your faith is God given saving faith...you are in covenant with God..the everlasting Covenant..Hebrews 13;20..even if you do not understand it, it is so.If your faith is not God given...it would be mere human trust.
i cannot see your heart ,so i accept your profession of faith even if you have strange ideas about it.
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Jn 1;12 does not negate the covenant especially if you look at the next verse...13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I do.....it seems as if you have some trouble with this however.
I know many follow his lead as he is a good teacher.
yes ..he agrees with what I have posted to you on two out of the three things listed....take note DHK.....you are saying that JM is teaching heresy:laugh: And you refuse to listen to the sermons i offered you which you cannot begin to refute...so what does that say???
DHK... I cannot twist your arm... I can just offer you the teaching of the word of God.
I am assuring you that you are wrong here....if you do not want to look..that is on you....
No....if you fail to consider others who offer you correction of your error..you are your own final authority as you posted yesterday...it is the word of God...as you DHK see it.....you posted 2pet 3;9 out of context and completely mis-used.....so if I a truck driver can spot such a blatant error....it does not surprise me that when i offer you teachers who teach the greek and hebrew to correct you...you do not want to look???
this is not sound DHK....i would urge you to reconsider your stance on this.
.
This sounds good as a sound bite...but we already know it is flawed reasoning.:thumbs:
There are no NT churches in the OT. That is why there is a type,and anti type.
The Ot saints were a called out assembly, a Holy nation{at least the elect remnant was} it was not the Nt church however, until the last day when their will only be one assembled body...not two separate bodies,as dispensationalism wrongly proclaims.
Although Jesus builds His church NT....there is a continuity ..a Covenant continuity ..the gentiles in Cornith were told that the Ot saints were..our fathers..you can deny it if you want,but this is what the bible teaches on it,as well as yesterdays post to you.
10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
There has always been law,and there has always been grace....conscience, human government, this false distinction was an attempt to help people understand redemptive history, but it was not as accurate as it should have been.
God has stayed with His one and only plan of salvation..it happens just as he purposed it to.
While I know the position you are offering...I now understand that the rapture happens at the last day ..as Jesus explained in jn 6...i will raise them up..on the last day..he repeats it over and over.
No..yada ,yada God always saves on the basis of His eternal covenant made know to man starting in Gen 3;15,the promised seed..
take some of the books off the shelf in your library and look at it afresh..
How about the great work of God in the History of redemption by Jonathan Edwards...to start with.
.
This statement is sad and for someone to be teaching this to others is even worse.Both jn 6 and heb 2 , heb 10 speak of the Covenant of Redemption as it unfolds in redemptive history,and finds fulfillment now in the new covenant which christians are under right now...
DHK...tell me you do not believe that the new covenant has not happened yet,and is only future for national Israel?
tell me that you do not hold that the church is a parenthesis.and a mystery form of the kingdom? but not the kingdom?
It does not have to be the logical conclusion.of covenant continuity,if rightly understood.That is why I am a RB ..not a padeo.
In your other post you falsely said padeos teach baptismal regeneration, you have now amended that now.
This is one area ..and ecclesiology is the second why i am not a padeo.
To suggest that they do not make a biblical case is error DHK....they do.
I just understand that they make an error at these two points..They take the Ot model...which did indeed have covenant children in the flesh, and try to superimpose it on the NT.
They make a biblical case.Just the wrong biblical case.like you saying that there are christians who can be categorized as carnal.
That is a wrong view,yet you try and make a biblical case.
Although you will not listen to pastors who would offer you correction,from the gk. text..not man made ideas.
I call myself a baptist because I am a baptist. martin luther was right on justification by faith alone,but i do not call myself a lutheran do you?
baptists are not reformers..reformers came out from rome.
the reformers restored truth from the RCC and also corrected the errors of the ana baptists.....
I take truth from wherever it comes from,whoever came closest to scripture. if the reformers understood God's covenants better than baptists i will draw on them. Some baptists..the Apostles and early church,and later the particular baptists see the truth.
Anyone who is saved is Saved by God placing them in saving union with Christ.Christ who covenanted with the Father and the Spirit before the world was .
If your faith is God given saving faith...you are in covenant with God..the everlasting Covenant..Hebrews 13;20..even if you do not understand it, it is so.If your faith is not God given...it would be mere human trust.
i cannot see your heart ,so i accept your profession of faith even if you have strange ideas about it.
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Jn 1;12 does not negate the covenant especially if you look at the next verse...13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I do.....it seems as if you have some trouble with this however.
.
I know many follow his lead as he is a good teacher.
yes ..he agrees with what I have posted to you on two out of the three things listed....take note DHK.....you are saying that JM is teaching heresy:laugh: And you refuse to listen to the sermons i offered you which you cannot begin to refute...so what does that say???
DHK... I cannot twist your arm... I can just offer you the teaching of the word of God.
I am assuring you that you are wrong here....if you do not want to look..that is on you....
No....if you fail to consider others who offer you correction of your error..you are your own final authority as you posted yesterday...it is the word of God...as you DHK see it.....you posted 2pet 3;9 out of context and completely mis-used.....so if I a truck driver can spot such a blatant error....it does not surprise me that when i offer you teachers who teach the greek and hebrew to correct you...you do not want to look???
this is not sound DHK....i would urge you to reconsider your stance on this.
.
This sounds good as a sound bite...but we already know it is flawed reasoning.:thumbs:
saturneptune
....................have it your way.....
....................have it your way.....
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
First of all, please leave Tom Butler out of this. He is way above this type of fray. Although a man of strong conviction about God's sovereignty, he stays out of those threads and ones like that because of this very reason. In fact, we have already discussed the exact subject of this thread, and I will keep his thoughts to myself. In fact, he is Chairman of the Deacons at our local church. I take his counsel very seriously, but keep it to myself. Surfice to say if he thought or conveyed to me he thought I was wrong, I would have dropped out of this thread. When it comes down to it, your conflict with others has nothing to do with the difference of opinion between free will and sovereignty, or covenant the dispy, etc, it has to do with arrogance, name calling, implied status of a relationship with the Lord, etc.
Next, you say you are a competative person. There is a difference between being competitive, and having a insatiable desire to get in the last word regardless of feeling or consequences to others. You claim no names called, no personal attacks, but that is just plain wrong. You might not have called me or others an idiot, etc, however, you directly and imply the status of relationships to the Lord constantly, "you are in error" or "you support false doctrine", etc, etc, etc. I can think of at least five posters off the top of my failing memory head.
As far as you dealing with a rough crowd on the road, this is not a truck stop locker room, neither are all of us used to a culture of rudeness, self agrandizment, etc. You should keep your 10/4 good buddy outlook in your cabin.
In a game of chess, you were checkmated many moves ago. The problem is you refuse to take your king off the board.
This is not cutural however. Two people with the Holy Spirit do not show a natural antagonism, even after an attempt at reconcilliation. Notice it certainly was not you that reached out. My guess is you apologize to no one. You can take the statment anyway you choose. As I said above, it will take time, but in the final analysis, either you will be banned or I will be banned.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
The fact is they are in error.
...
.
there is no...however....there is you accusing and having an evil mind toward me.
Like your attack on preachingjesus and his congregation...yes..i see
Actually..it is just as I say it is......you will see ....
The fact is they are in error.
...
.
there is no...however....there is you accusing and having an evil mind toward me.
Like your attack on preachingjesus and his congregation...yes..i see
Actually..it is just as I say it is......you will see ....
Last edited by a moderator: