A Question

[canadyjd]

Now at last to the question. The Jews are anti Christian; the Muslims are anti Christian; the Hindus are anti Christian. Why then is it such a grievous sin to be anti semitic and yet not such a grievous sin to be anti Islam or anti Hindu, or anti any other ethnic or religious group? I have not seen anyone on this forum taken to the woodshed over making anti Islamic remarks.

I don't know that anyone is saying one is a grievous sin and the other isn't.

What I object to is an attempt to paint with a very broad brush an entire people as "evil" and conspiring against me. I don't believe that of Muslems, Hindus, Catholics, or Jews.

If, generally speaking, they "hate" me because I am a Christian, then I already understand and expect that because Jesus told us it would happen. The entire world hates Christ and Christians are not to be spared the persecution.

Most Jews, however, are not particularly involved in the day to day activities of world domination or the on-going stuggle with the Jesuits to control SBC seminaries.

peace to youraying:

 

[Havensdad]

The simple statement of fact that these men are divorced is not slander.
But you never stated that, even though I asked you to.
I know that these men are divorced, but that has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of dispensationalism. If dispensationalism rises or falls on a person's character then covenant theology has much to give account for.

You do realize don't you, that the entire Roman Catholic Church bases their theology on Covenant Theology. Using your logic Covenant Theology must be the most heretical theology one could possibly encounter. Just think of the Inquistions and the Crusades, and the result of millions of innocent believers cruelly martyred at their hands--at the hands of Covenant Theologians.
Does it rise or fall on the character of other men?
Or does it rise or fall on the Word of God, which is the final authority of all of our doctrine in faith and practice.

DHK,

Bro, you are confusing Amillennialism with Covenant theology.

What some Roman Catholics call "Covenant Theology", is actually completely different from reformed Covenant theology. And EVEN THIS "Covenant theology", did not come about until the 20th century, long after the reformers, the inquisition, and the whole business.

 

[DHK]

You are incorrect unless you can prove otherwise. Covenant Theology is the product of the Reformation as shown in the following.

Is this an admission from you that Covenant Theology is relatively new in origin, and that before that time people (by default) must have believed in dispensationalism.

Go to any Catholic apologist. They will thoroughly walk you through the various Covenants. I know; we had them here for some time. The Catholics believe in a form of Replacement Theology. They (the RCC) are the ones that have replaced Israel. The Covenant is now for the Catholics. They pattern their religion after the OT--priests interceding on behalf of the people, the sacrifice of the mass, the baptism of infants relating to the circumcision in the OT, etc. Theirs is a Covenant Theology. It always has been.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Bro, you are confusing Amillennialism with Covenant theology.

What some Roman Catholics call "Covenant Theology", is actually completely different from reformed Covenant theology.

Go and reread some of the posts. The accusations made by those that hold to Covenant Theology here on the board is that there are many stripes of dispensationalists. True? Hyper, progressive, classic, etc.
Please don't tell me that there are not many different types of Covenant theologians. I know there are. There lies the fallacy in your argument.

BTW, T.T. Shields was an amillenialist who was a dispensationalist at the same time. I am not speaking of eschatology here. You are confused.

 

[EdSutton]

My eschatology is Biblical. When Jesus Christ returns there will be a general resurrection and judgment [before the great White Throne] of all the dead [John 5:28, 29]. Those who died in Adam will be cast into the Lake of Fire along with Satan. Those who died in Jesus Christ will dwell throughout eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth with God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If there is 'only' "a general resurrection", why then does Scripture specifically speak of a "the first resurrection" which, by its very definition, implies at least one other to follow? Also where is the place of the 'bema' as none of those who stand "before the great White Throne" are ever said (or implied) to be saved individuals?? And where is the place of the resurrection spoken of in Dan. 12:1-2, as well??

And, in fact, John 5:29 specifically differentiates between two resurrections, I believe, as well, as opposed to teaching any "general resurrection". Let's look at the verse.

And they that have done good things, shall go into again-rising of life; but they that have done evil things, into again-rising of doom. (WYC-1382 - modernized spelling)

And thei that han do goode thingis, schulen go in to ayenrisyng of lijf; but thei that han done yuele thingis, in to ayenrisyng of doom. (WYC-p - 1395)

and shall come forthe: they that have done good vnto the resurreccion of lyfe: and they that have done evyll vnto the resurreccion of dampnacion. (TYN - 1526)

and shal go forth, they that haue done good, vnto the resurreccion of life: but they that haue done euell, vnto the resurreccion of damnacion. (MCB - 1535)

And they shal come foorth, that haue done good, vnto ye resurrection of life: but they that haue done euil, vnto the resurrection of condemnation. (GEN - 1587)

And shall come foorth, they that haue done good, vnto the resurrection of life, and they that haue done euill, vnto the resurrection of damnation. (KJ- 1611)

And shall come forth, they that have done good, to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation. (WES-1755)

And shall come forth; they that have done good to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation. (WBT-1836)

and they shall come forth; those who did the good things to a rising again of life, and those who practised the evil things to a rising again of judgment. (YLT-1862)

And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done ill, unto the resurrection of judgment. (RV-1881)

and shall go forth; those that have practised good, to resurrection of life, and those that have done [SIZE=-1]F51[/SIZE] evil, to resurrection of judgment. (DBY-1895)

and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. (ASV- 1901)

and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. (RSV-1946)

and will come forth; those [SIZE=-1]R269[/SIZE] who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. (NASB-1960, etc.)

and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. (NKJV-1982)

And they will come out, the ones having done good into a resurrection of life; and the ones having practiced evil into a resurrection of judgment. (LIT-1985)

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]and shall come forth -- they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.(TMB-1998)[/FONT]

and come out -- those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked things, to the resurrection of judgment. (HCSB-2003)

Looks to me like this has been clearly taught and differentiated in the Bible in English, at least in these versions which approach a modicum of formal equivalence, for more than six and a quarter centuries, where I can assure you, John Wycliffe far pre-dates Darby, Scofield or any of the others mentioned, in the two threads. I see no mention here of any "general resurrection", do you??

Further, may I suggest that others who hold to some of these other ideas, anywhere from classic dispensationalism to preterism and A-millenialism also believe their eschatology to be entirely Biblical, just as you do, as well.

Since you are admittedly "still learning" there is hope for you!

But nice 'shot' anyway.

BTW, I do have multiple Biblical disagreements with stilllearning, FTR.

Ed

 

[pilgrim2009]

The simple statement of fact that these men are divorced is not slander.
But you never stated that, even though I asked you to.
I know that these men are divorced, but that has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of dispensationalism. If dispensationalism rises or falls on a person's character then covenant theology has much to give account for.

Agreed.

You do realize don't you, that the entire Roman Catholic Church bases their theology on Covenant Theology. Using your logic Covenant Theology must be the most heretical theology one could possibly encounter. Just think of the Inquistions and the Crusades, and the result of millions of innocent believers cruelly martyred at their hands--at the hands of Covenant Theologians.
Does it rise or fall on the character of other men?
Or does it rise or fall on the Word of God, which is the final authority of all of our doctrine in faith and practice.

You will have to show proof and documentation that RC is based on Covenant theology.Fact is the RC Theologians attack the doctrines of grace not the other way around.

Yes the Bible is the final authority.

Do you believe that divorced men should be in the pulpit leading the flock according to the pastoral epistles of St Paul?

We do agree so far on your quoted post.

God bless you in Jesus name.

Steven.

 

[Havensdad]

Go and reread some of the posts. The accusations made by those that hold to Covenant Theology here on the board is that there are many stripes of dispensationalists. True? Hyper, progressive, classic, etc.
Please don't tell me that there are not many different types of Covenant theologians. I know there are. There lies the fallacy in your argument.

BTW, T.T. Shields was an amillenialist who was a dispensationalist at the same time. I am not speaking of eschatology here. You are confused.

Here is the problem. As I stated above (must have been editing the post while you were typing), the Roman Catholics did not turn to their brand of "Covenant Theology", until the early 20th century, when they began focusing more on Patristic interpretation.

I am not confused BTW. Eschatological Schemes are inevitably tied to the Dispensational/Covenant debate. Amillennial dispensationalism is contradictory.

 

[DHK]

Here is the problem. As I stated above (must have been editing the post while you were typing), the Roman Catholics did not turn to their brand of "Covenant Theology", until the early 20th century, when they began focusing more on Patristic interpretation.

I am not confused BTW. Eschatological Schemes are inevitably tied to the Dispensational/Covenant debate. Amillennial dispensationalism is contradictory.

I would hate to call T.T. Shields a confused or contradictory man. He was one of the great fundamental leaders of the 20th century. You may disagree with his theology (as I do also). But I doubt if it is impossible to believe as he did. He wouldn't believe it if it was. You ought to read his biography before judging the man.

 

[Havensdad]

I would hate to call T.T. Shields a confused or contradictory man. He was one of the great fundamental leaders of the 20th century. You may disagree with his theology (as I do also). But I doubt if it is impossible to believe as he did. He wouldn't believe it if it was. You ought to read his biography before judging the man.

Bro, I am not judging anyone. I simply said that dispensationalism, and Amillennialism, are contradictory. I made no judgments: I stated my opinion.

 

[DHK]

You will have to show proof and documentation that RC is based on Covenant theology.Fact is the RC Theologians attack the doctrines of grace not the other way around.

I have already shown some comparison of that. I have debated Catholic apologists on this board. I know from experience. I was formerly a Catholic for twenty years.

Do you believe that divorced men should be in the pulpit leading the flock according to the pastoral epistles of St Paul?

No, I do not.
Do you believe it is a sin to lie? Have you ever lied?
Do you believe it is a sin to covet? Have you ever coveted?
Do you believe it is a sin to get angry? Have you ever lost your temper?

Sin is sin; Whether it is divorce or lying. God forgives sin. That has no bearing on whether or not I believe dispensationalism or whether it is correct according to the Word of God. Why are you throwing around red herrings that have nothing to do with this topic.

 

[EdSutton]

Most Jews, however, are not particularly involved in the day to day activities of world domination or the on-going stuggle with the Jesuits to control SBC seminaries.

I'm fairly sure that Drs. Albert Mohler (SBTS); Paige Patterson (SWBTS); Chuck Kelley (NOBTS); Jeff Iorg (GGBTS); and Daniel Akin (SEBTS), as well as Drs. Michael Spradlin (MABTS); James Flanagan (LRTS); and Ergun Caner (LBTS) with the last three being effectively Southern Baptist, although not officially, are having no ongoing struggle with either "Jews" or "Jesuits" to control the Seminaries they lead, for there is no such "struggle", at least here. And I speak as a Southern Baptist, who happens to know a little bit about all these Seminaries I mentioned, including having a couple of long time friends who teach at a couple of them.

I cannot speak to any other seminaries, which are not Southern Baptist, and about which I effectively know nothing and will not attempt to do so, but your completely unsupported allegation here about "SBC Seminaries" is scurrilous, at best.

Ed

 

[pilgrim2009]

If there is 'only' "a general resurrection", why then does Scripture specifically speak of a "the first resurrection" which, by its very definition, implies at least one other to follow? Also where is the place of the 'bema' as none of those who stand "before the great White Throne" are ever said (or implied) to be saved individuals?? And where is the place of the resurrection spoken of in Dan. 12:1-2, as well??

Brother before dispensationalism came along there was no confusion about the 1st Resurrection.The 1st resurrection is a spiritual one and pre-1800`s knew this well.Also the hath in the KJ Bible is past tense refering to some-thing that has already taken place.Also the 1000 years in Revelation is symbolic of the Church age and many of the reformers believed this until the theology was hijacked.Brother your waiting on a Millennium that your living in now.

The 2nd Resurrection will happen and the lost and saved will be judged at the great white throne and is not seperated by a 1007 years.

1st Resurrection

{Ephesians 2:6}And HATH RAISED us up together,and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.



{Col 2:12} Buried with him in baptism,wherein also YE ARE RISEN with him through faith of the operation of God,who hath raised him from the dead.


Rest of the dead is the spiritually dead{i.e.the lost}those that have died without Christ and at the end of the 1000 years symbolic of the Church age all lost and saved will be resurrected to be judged {GWT} and the saints will join Christ in the air POST-TRIB RAPTURE.

{Rev 20:5}But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.This is the first resurrection.


God bless you in Jesus.

Steven.

 

[EdSutton]

Also the hath in the KJ Bible is past tense refering to some-thing that has already taken place.Also the 1000 years in Revelation is symbolic of the Church age and many of the reformers believed this until the theology was hijacked.Brother your waiting on a Millennium that your living in now.

You might wish to do a bit of study about the language, as there is no "past tense" in the Greek language, although some Greek tenses may seem to approach this, in our mind.

Also, if there is a reigning of the Lord Jesus Christ, I certainly do not see it, except in the spiritual manner, these days. I surely don't see the lion lying down with the kid, nations beating their swords into plowshares, or Jesus ruling from Jerusalem.

You might also want to do a bit of study on 'chiliaism' in the early days of the church, as well, to note that there have been many varied opinions on this since "Day 1". Early 'leaders' such as Justin, Ireaneus, Tertullian, Papias and Lactanus believed this while such other 'leaders' such as Origen, Eusebius, and Dionysius of Alexandria opposed the teaching. There is, has, and had been no single idea about this, for nearly two millenia, regardless of what you are proposing, although at various times one idea or another has had greater preeminence than others, the majority of the 'Reformers' notwithstanding.

Ed

 

[Allan]

Here is the problem. As I stated above (must have been editing the post while you were typing), the Roman Catholics did not turn to their brand of "Covenant Theology", until the early 20th century, when they began focusing more on Patristic interpretation.

I am not confused BTW. Eschatological Schemes are inevitably tied to the Dispensational/Covenant debate. Amillennial dispensationalism is contradictory.

Amil is a subgroup of Covenant Theology (unless I misunderstood you as it being a seperate group all together).

Covenant Theology as espoused by the reformers is a modification of the Catholic version which is better known as Replacement Theology but it's roots come from and are directly linked to that theological construct. It is somewhat but not much different from its Roman Catholic counterpart with the exception that they believe the Church (which is a seperate entity) has replaced Israel as God people since they have been permenantly removed from that position. Covenant holds that the CHurch is a continuation of Israel. Remember the 'Reformers' were not trying to break away from the Catholic Church but were trying to 'reform' some of it's view they saw are becoming apostate. (and praise God for them )

It is this Roman Catholic view known also as "Replacement Theology" is what usuruped the Premil view of the early church fathers,

 

[Allan]

Brother before dispensationalism came along there was no confusion about the 1st Resurrection.The 1st resurrection is a spiritual one and pre-1800`s knew this well.

brither I would suggest you do ALOT more studying here because your education in this is grossly under par.

 

[Havensdad]

Amil is a subgroup of Covenant Theology (unless I misunderstood you as it being a seperate group all together).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Amillennialism is covenantal, but Covenantal Theology is not necessarily Amil. This was my point. I do not see how someone could hold to a dispy/Amil position.

Covenant Theology as espoused by the reformers is a modification of the Catholic version which is better known as Replacement Theology but it's roots come from and are directly linked to that theological construct. It is somewhat but not much different from its Roman Catholic counterpart with the exception that they believe the Church (which is a seperate entity) has replaced Israel as God people since they have been permenantly removed from that position. Covenant holds that the CHurch is a continuation of Israel. Remember the 'Reformers' were not trying to break away from the Catholic Church but were trying to 'reform' some of it's view they saw are becoming apostate. (and praise God for them )

I disagree with this. The Roman Catholic System, at the time of the reformers, was 180 degrees away from the protestant view. The view that the RCC currently holds, changed around the turn of the century, and was very strongly influenced by not only a review of the early church fathers, but the reformers as well. This was a late development in Roman Catholicism.

It is this Roman Catholic view known also as "Replacement Theology" is what usuruped the Premil view of the early church fathers,

I agree, to some extent. But the Early Church fathers had a historical premillennial view, which reflected a covenant theology bent: it was not the dispensational premil of today. This was a late development by Darby and a few others

I personally don't understand how a person can get A- or post millennialism from scripture. I am very much Pre-mil. But I also don't understand how someone can get dispensationalism out of the Bible, either.

 

[pilgrim2009]

You might wish to do a bit of study about the language, as there is no "past tense" in the Greek language, although some Greek tenses may seem to approach this, in our mind.

Well whatever it`s full meaning we are already raised spiritually speaking with Christ.

Also, if there is a reigning of the Lord Jesus Christ, I certainly do not see it, except in the spiritual manner, these days. I surely don't see the lion lying down with the kid, nations beating their swords into plowshares, or Jesus ruling from Jerusalem.

{1st Cor 15:25} For he must reign,till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

We know the last enemy is death 1st Cor 15:26

The lion laying with the kid and nations beating their swords into plowshares cannot refer to a 1000 year Millennium on earth after Christ returns because this earth will be destroyed/Dissolved {G3089} not renovated with fire.

{2nd Peter 3:7,10,11,12}

Also a 1000 year Millennium after Christ return contradicts the Scripture because {2nd Peter 3:7,10,11,12}after the earth is dissolved with fire Peter was expecting a New Heavens and New Earth {2nd Peter 3:13}according to Gods promise {Isaiah 65:17-66:12}-{2nd Peter 3:13}-{Rev 21:1}

This earth will become the former one that shall never be again {Isaiah 65:17}.

The Bible is very clear that the lost and saved will be Judged at the same Judgment {Matthew 25:32}-{2nd Cor 5:10}-{Heb 9:27}-{2nd Peter 2:9}-{2nd Peter 3:7}-{Jude 14,15}

The very ones that crucified Christ 2000 years ago will see him upon his return at the resurrection not a 1007 years later even so amen.{Rev 1:7}

Resurrection of the just and unjust at the same time in {Daniel 12:2}


The ruling from David`s Throne was the resurrection of Christ and His exaltation to the right hand of God the father.This is where Scofield`s system is wrong.There is not but one Throne of God and Jesus is on it {Rev 1:4}says the seven Spirits are before His Throne}.

Scofield could not see that Jesus being exalted to Kingship was Davids Throne.

Phil 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,and given him a name which is above every name {Heb 1:9 1st Peter 3:22}

Acts 2:31 says this is what the prophecy was about {i.e.the resurrection and exaltation of Christ to Kingship was Davids Throne..

We will get a brand New Heaven and Earth where flesh and blood cannot go.

You might also want to do a bit of study on 'chiliaism' in the early days of the church, as well, to note that there have been many varied opinions on this since "Day 1". Early 'leaders' such as Justin, Ireaneus, Tertullian, Papias and Lactanus believed this while such other 'leaders' such as Origen, Eusebius, and Dionysius of Alexandria opposed the teaching. There is, has, and had been no single idea about this, for nearly two millenia, regardless of what you are proposing, although at various times one idea or another has had greater preeminence than others, the majority of the 'Reformers' notwithstanding.

Ed

Agreed and God bless in Jesus.

 

[OldRegular]

Is this an admission from you that Covenant Theology is relatively new in origin, and that before that time people (by default) must have believed in dispensationalism.

Go to any Catholic apologist. They will thoroughly walk you through the various Covenants. I know; we had them here for some time. The Catholics believe in a form of Replacement Theology. They (the RCC) are the ones that have replaced Israel. The Covenant is now for the Catholics. They pattern their religion after the OT--priests interceding on behalf of the people, the sacrifice of the mass, the baptism of infants relating to the circumcision in the OT, etc. Theirs is a Covenant Theology. It always has been.

Dispensationalists may believe what they choose even though it is incorrect. Furthermore dispensationalism did not precede Covenant Theology the product of the Reformation as I showed earlier. Dispensationalism was one of those doctrines that came out of the 19th century just like Seventh day Adventism, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Roman Catholics may have a Covenant Theology, I don't know. But it is not the theology of the Reformation. I do agree that they draw many of their practices from the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament.

The nation Israel finished their mission in God's redemptive purpose with the birth of Jesus Christ. The New Testament Church is a continuation of spiritual Israel of the Old Testament as the Apostle Paul shows in his parable of the olive trees. God has only one people as the Southern Baptist Faith and Message states.

And now back to the OP, I hope.

 

[OldRegular]

If there is 'only' "a general resurrection", why then does Scripture specifically speak of a "the first resurrection" which, by its very definition, implies at least one other to follow? Also where is the place of the 'bema' as none of those who stand "before the great White Throne" are ever said (or implied) to be saved individuals?? And where is the place of the resurrection spoken of in Dan. 12:1-2, as well??

What was the First Resurrection and only resurrection to date. The resurrection of Jesus Christ

And, in fact, John 5:29 specifically differentiates between two resurrections, I believe, as well, as opposed to teaching any "general resurrection".

You are mistaken. John 5:28, 29 states: Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

One time, one voice, one resurrection of both the good and the evil!

All the versions you presented state that they shall come out or forth when they hear that voice at that one time.

Let's look at the verse.Looks to me like this has been clearly taught and differentiated in the Bible in English, at least in these versions which approach a modicum of formal equivalence, for more than six and a quarter centuries, where I can assure you, John Wycliffe far pre-dates Darby, Scofield or any of the others mentioned, in the two threads. I see no mention here of any "general resurrection", do you??

You conveniently left out verse 28. There is one time, one voice, and one resurrection of both the good and the evil. I call that a general resurrection.

Further, may I suggest that others who hold to some of these other ideas, anywhere from classic dispensationalism to preterism and A-millenialism also believe their eschatology to be entirely Biblical, just as you do, as well.

I would hope so but we can't all be correct. At least I get my beliefs from Scripture not Darby/Scofield.

 

[OldRegular]

Covenant holds that the CHurch is a continuation of Israel.

I believe you are mistaken. Covenant Theology does not believe that the Church is a continuation of carnal Israel, rather a continuation of Spiritual Israel. There is a vast difference. Simply see Paul's parable of the olive tree in Romans 11.