Are we living under the New Covenant??

[Brother Bob]

Maybe, and maybe not. But the RCC find great solace in the writings of the ECF. So what does that prove? Perhaps it demonstrates that there might be more error than truth among their writings. Have you ever heard of progressive revelation or know what it is? Don't get me wrong. I believe that God stopped his revelation or that all revelation ceased when the Bible was complete. However as time "progresses" we learn more than those that have gone on before us for we can build on their knowledge and learning. Hindsight is better than foresight. Cyprian and others, for example, never had a Strong's concordance to study with. And Strong himself never had "Swordsearcher" or some other computer program. We have many things today that help us to study the Bible that those a few centuries ago never had. In fact before the advent of the printing press most everything was very difficult. We learn and build upon the foundation of the learning of others. No man is an island.__________________
DHK

So, God does not do the revealing to man, its the other way around. I have heard this before. "I learned something New!!"
I doubt it. Don't you know all these "google" checks you make were put there by some man or young boy??

Strong's concordance

You and I use Strong's, many others will not, so what does that prove?? Or disprove??
Do you think some have progressed to women preachers, gay preachers, dying in sin as when He comes when you think not?? Is this part of the revelation? Yea, we come a long way alright. M. E. ??

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

To whom addressed? "First Apology":
Quote:
CHAPTER I -- ADDRESS.
To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar,

Addressed to the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Caesar,

CHAPTER XI -- WHAT KINGDOM CHRISTIANS LOOK FOR. And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom; whereas we speak of that which is with God, as appears also from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, though they know that death is the punishment awarded to him who so confesses. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since also death is a debt which must at all events be paid.

Is that not what I posted, so instead of saying it was true, you give me the same statement I made.

I see your source is a very young man, who published his history in 2001. I suppose he got his information the same place we get ours. Wonder if he spoke with Phillip Schaff??

(Philip Schaff(1877)
"Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and[believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise

Yea, I got it Ed, were you able to absorb the whole thing or just the part you like??? Did you get this part??

For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; Justin

BBob,

 

[DHK]

So, God does not do the revealing to man, its the other way around. I have heard this before. "I learned something New!!"
I doubt it. Don't you know all these "google" checks you make were put there by some man or young boy??

I think you misunderstand. God revealed what he revealed but only through the Word of God. Only the books of the Bible are the inspired Word of God. No other book or writing is inspired. On that I am sure we can agree.

However, I have learned many "new" things from others. I cannot deny that. If that wasn't the case I would have never acquired an education past grade 12. What do you think the purpose of an education is for? Are the Mennonites and Hutterites right in their philosophies of education?

You and I use Strong's, many others will not, so what does that prove?? Or disprove??

It proves that you rely on the learning of others in your own personal study of the Bible. If it were not for the painstaking study and work of Strong you would not be able to study your Bible as efficiently as you have in the past. You rely on that man's study and education. You have proved that you do not use the Bible alone in your study of the Scriptures. you use the learning of other men. That is progressive revelation.

Do you think some have progressed to women preachers, gay preachers, dying in sin as when He comes when you think not?? Is this part of the revelation? Yea, we come a long way alright. M. E. ??

Don't poke fun at what you don't understand, and unwittingly believe in yourself. If you do not use Strong's or any other reference book like a Greek reference book, then you can say you don't believe in progressive revelation. But the fact is that you do. You do rely on the learning of others. We all do. God does not give revelation, but he does give illumination. And that illumination that he gives to some we all can benefit from. Some of the best sermons I have "heard" are the ones that I have read--whether in book form or on the internet. This would not come about except it be for the printing press. We build upon the knowledge of others, and that BTW includes the knowledge of Darby and Scofield, and others. Before that time a long line of reformed scholars were stuch in their "reformism." They were not willing to think "outside of their box." They were not willing to think that there could be another way. They all accepted the "status quo."

 

[Brother Bob]

but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise

Ed; if this is true by Justin, then those who say that Premilleniumism prevailed without question, the first 3 centuries is not true is it.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

However, I have learned many "new" things from others. I cannot deny that. If that wasn't the case I would have never acquired an education past grade 12. What do you think the purpose of an education is for? Are the Mennonites and Hutterites right in their philosophies of education?

Gal 1:12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

We do learn, and education is great. We need all we can get. I wish I had of taken more in my life time except engineering college courses.

You and I use Strong's, many others will not, so what does that prove?? Or disprove?? It proves that you rely on the learning of others in your own personal study of the Bible. If it were not for the painstaking study and work of Strong you would not be able to study your Bible as efficiently as you have in the past. You rely on that man's study and education. You have proved that you do not use the Bible alone in your study of the Scriptures. you use the learning of other men. That is progressive revelation

agree

Quote:
BB; Do you think some have progressed to women preachers, gay preachers, dying in sin as when He comes when you think not?? Is this part of the revelation? Yea, we come a long way alright. M. E. ??


DHK; Don't poke fun at what you don't understand, and unwittingly believe in yourself. If you do not use Strong's or any other reference book like a Greek reference book, then you can say you don't believe in progressive revelation. But the fact is that you do. You do rely on the learning of others. We all do. God does not give revelation, but he does give illumination. And that illumination that he gives to some we all can benefit from. Some of the best sermons I have "heard" are the ones that I have read--whether in book form or on the internet. This would not come about except it be for the printing press. We build upon the knowledge of others, and that BTW includes the knowledge of Darby and Scofield, and others. Before that time a long line of reformed scholars were stuch in their "reformism." They were not willing to think "outside of their box." They were not willing to think that there could be another way. They all accepted the "status quo."
__________________
DHK

Not poking fun, I mean every word of it, I am strongly against it.

BBob,

 

[skypair]

Drifting nothing, your doctrine was silenced for hundreds of years until they found some baptist who grabbed it and run with it, in 18 or 19th century, with the help of Darby who came over here from England where he found some "green pasture", and D. L. Moody, who followed. I think there were 3 or 4 more before him. The MK started of with it would be a time of "sensual desires" and living after ever desire of the flesh. Sounds like at the beginning it was near Islamic belief of the 70 virgins...........

So now you are beginning to admit that it wasn't "invented" in 1900 like you said. Well, that's something anyway.

As I look at history, I notice the moving of the Spirit in different times different ways, don't you? To me, the church was plunged into darkness in about 300 AD. "The wind bloweth and listeth where it will. So it is with the Spirit." There were much more significant issues than eschatology for that same period you say eschatology was neglected, Bob.

I might add as well that it has been noted that during that same period, starting with Origen, most all of what wasn't understood was allegorized. That's like you obviously do with Israel -- they just replaced their promises with the church. You are so deep into this, I doubt you can find your way out, Bob.

What denomination are you, I like to know who I am dealing with also. There are many Baptist who are far away from Baptist doctrine.

Southern Baptist.


skypair

 

[TCGreek]

BBob is committing a common fallacy by only reading and concluding on one side of church history. Why not take everything into consideration?

 

[EdSutton]

Ed; if this is true by Justin, then those who say that Premilleniumism prevailed without question, the first 3 centuries is not true is it.

BBob,

Neither Justin nor I ever said that "Premilleniumism (sic) prevailed without question" in the first place, so your question is meaningless. And it is "Premillenialism", not "premilleniumism", BTW.

I am not responsible for what another says, preaches or teaches. So what some other writes is not necessarily so. Time and again, I have said there were several flavors of teaching about the millenium, then, as today. Nor have I claimed that Justin was a premillenialist, but that only he preached and taught there would be a real millenium.

[Your original attempt was to "prove" that no one except a few "heretics" ever taught this doctrine, which you abjectively crossed with some version of modern day dispensationalism, if you remember. And then that basically no one at all taught it until the emergence of John Nelson Darby in the 1800s. I only showed that this is not the case, but I never said it was not the predominant teaching for nearly a millenium and a half.
In fact, I said that is the case, and is still true today, FTR. First Origen, and later Augustine made their inroads in theology, with results that are still with us, today.

I do admit wondering why you seem to put so much faith in one who spiritualizes and allegorizes most Scripture (Origen) and the one who is the real father of what became known when more fully developed as Calvinism (Augustine), when you are an admitted Arminian, in theology, however.]

Justin was not what we would today term a Premillenialist, at all, but rather what is known as an "historic millenialist". I by contrast, would be called a "premillenialist", by most. Gotta' run.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Ed; if this is true by Justin, then those who say that Premilleniumism prevailed without question, the first 3 centuries is not true is it.

BBob,
Neither Justin nor I ever said that "Premilleniumism (sic) prevailed without question" in the first place, so your question is meaningless. And it is "Premillenialism", not "premilleniumism", BTW.

I didn't say you did, but many others have.

[Your original attempt was to "prove" that no one except a few "heretics" ever taught this doctrine, which you abjectively crossed with some version of modern day dispensationalism, if you remember. And then that basically no one at all taught it until the emergence of John Nelson Darby in the 1800s. I only showed that this is not the case, but I never said it was not the predominant teaching for nearly a millenium and a half.
In fact, I said that is the case, and is still true today, FTR. First Origen, and later Augustine made their inroads in theology, with results that are still with us, today.

I still hold that it was not widely taught, until Darby and a couple before him, followed by D L Moody. BTW, they were called heretics.

I do admit wondering why you seem to put so much faith in one who spiritualizes and allegorizes most Scripture (Origen) and the one who is the real father of what became known when more fully developed as Calvinism (Augustine), when you are an admitted Arminian, in theology, however.]

Now you are just reading one side when I said that I was Arminian, then restated, not on all issues.
As a matter of fact, in the 1800's we were Calvinist.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

BBob is committing a common fallacy by only reading and concluding on one side of church history. Why not take everything into consideration?

I don't see any of you posting the other position of the MK history, other than what you believe. If I am making a mistake, so are those on your side of the issue. At least you admit there are two sides.

Except to your credit TC;, you did acknowledge that there were two beliefs on the MK in the beginning and some were looking for sensual desires and fleshly lusts.

Skypair, says its his way only. I think he believes he was there!!! He sticks his head in the sand when it comes to early history of the Christians.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

I might add as well that it has been noted that during that same period, starting with Origen, most all of what wasn't understood was allegorized. That's like you obviously do with Israel -- they just replaced their promises with the church. You are so deep into this, I doubt you can find your way out, Bob.

At least Justin was Godly enough to say many "good" christians, did not believe in a literal Kingdom of a 1000 years, in 150 AD.

Man, I am glad I have learned all I have about Israel and the MK, if I had of listened to you and others only, I would never of known that in the beginning of the doctrine of MK, they were looking for sensual desires and fleshly fulfillments.

I also am not like you and say the nation of Israel was cut off, when the scripture says only branches were cut off. Some of the scriptures speak of some of them were cutoff.
I certainly believe the scripture over you that the Lord said He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and house of Judah. He said it, I believe it.
You are like the Jews, standing around still looking for the Messiah to come. He came by them and you and you never even noticed.

BBob,

 

[TCGreek]

I don't see any of you posting the other position of the MK history, other than what you believe. If I am making a mistake, so are those on your side of the issue. At least you admit there are two sides.

Except to your credit TC;, you did acknowledge that there were two beliefs on the MK in the beginning and some were looking for sensual desires and fleshly lusts.

Skypair, says its his way only. I think he believes he was there!!! He sticks his head in the sand when it comes to early history of the Christians.

BBob,

I'm only commenting on what factual of church history. So where do you ultimately fall BBob? Which camp on the Millennial Kingdom?

 

[TCGreek]

The late Reformed pastor and theologian James M. Boice said there was no way for him to explain away Romans 11:25-32: God is not done with ethnic Israel (Acts 15:13-18).

 

[Brother Bob]

The late Reformed pastor and theologian James M. Boice said there was no way for him to explain away Romans 11:25-32: God is not done with ethnic Israel (Acts 15:13-18).

Amos 9:
9: For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
10: All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.
11: In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

Mar 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

It was just the fulfilling of the prophecies!!

 

[Brother Bob]

I'm only commenting on what factual of church history. So where do you ultimately fall BBob? Which camp on the Millennial Kingdom?__________________

I go with the camp of:

John Calvin

John Wesley

John Whitefield

Westminster Confession of faith

and many others.

 

[TCGreek]

Amos 9:
9: For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
10: All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.
11: In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:


It was just the fulfilling of the prophecies!!

According to James, After God has taken a people for Himself from among the Gentiles, He'll turn to Israel again (Acts 15;13-18). Has God taken a people from among the Gentiles already? Are Gentiles still being saved?

 

[TCGreek]

I go with the camp of:

John Calvin

John Wesley

John Whitefield

Spurgeon

Westminster Confession of faith

and many others.

Spurgeon was a covenant premillennialist who believed God wasn't done with ethnic Israel, so you might want to edit your list.

 

[Brother Bob]

According to James, After God has taken a people for Himself from among the Gentiles, He'll turn to Israel again (Acts 15;13-18). Has God taken a people from among the Gentiles already? Are Gentiles still being saved?

I take the fullness of the Gentiles to be when God sifts the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve

Act 28:28Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it.

Why do you believe it is when the very last gentile is saved???

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Spurgeon was a covenant premillennialist who believed God wasn't done with ethnic Israel, so you might want to edit your list.
__________________

C.H. Spurgeon (1865)
"Those who wish to see the arguments upon the unpopular side of the great question at issue, will find them here; this is probably one of the ablest of the accessible treatises from that point of view. We cannot agree with Mr. Young, neither can we refute him. It might tax the ingenuity of the ablest prophetical writers to solve all the difficulties here started, and perhaps it would be unprofitable to attempt the task. . . (review of Short Arguments about the Millennium; or plain proofs for plain Christians that the coming of Christ will not be pre-millennial; that his reign will not be personal, B. C. Young. In The Sword and Trowel 1:470 (October 1867).

Seems to be an honest man and not hardheaded as some on here, and not you TC;

John Calvin on the other hand;
John Calvin(1536)
"But a little later there followed the chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error does not support them. For the number "one thousand" (Rev. 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on earth."
"For when we apply to it the measure of our own understanding, what can we conceive that is not gross and earthly? So it happens that like beasts our senses attract us to what appeals to our flesh, and we grasp at what is at hand. So we see that the Chialists (i.e. those who believed that Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years) fell into a like error. Jesus intended to banish from the disciples' minds a false impression regarding the earthly kingdom: for that, as He points out in a few words, consists of the preaching of the Gospel. They have no cause therefore to dream of wealth, luxury, power in the world or any other earthly thing when they hear that Christ is reigning when He subdues the world to Himself by the preaching of the Gospel. It follows from this that His reign is spiritual and not after the pattern of this world." - Comm. on Acts 1:8 (Torrance, VI, 32).

Yea, got two different subjects and went with wrong one. Spurgeon, believed you had to turn from sin.

BBob,

Spurgeon
This one is from Spurgeon's sermons, Volume II.
Turn Or Burn

I.In the first place, my hearers, let me endeavor to explain to you the nature of the turning here meant.....

Ah! My hearer, it is not thy promise of repentance that can save thee; it is not thy vow, it is not thy solemn declaration, it is not the tear that is dried more easily than the dew-drop by the sun; it is not the transient emotion of the heart, which constitues a real turning to God. There must be a true and actual abandonment of sin, and a turning unto righteousness in real act and deed in every day life. Do you say you are sorry, and repent, and yet go on from day to day, just as you always went? Will you now boy your heads, and say, "Lord, I Repent," and in a little while

As a matter of fact, the only one for sure as of now on that list is John Calvin, so disregard the list please.

 

[TCGreek]

I take the fullness of the Gentiles to be when God sifts the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve

Act 28:28Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it.

Why do you believe it is when the very last gentile is saved???

BBob,

1. Has God turned back to ethnic Israel? Is the eschatological David sitting on the throne after these things?

2. Is there anything to difficult for God to do, including saving that last Gentile before He turns to Israel again?