Arrogance or Contending for the Truth?

[The American Dream]

I guess I am confused about the title of this thread "arrogant or contending for the truth?" What I am failing to understand is the way it is worded, it has to be one or the other. Since arrogance has no place in the life of a Christian, I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Contending for the truth is nothing more than telling others the Good News, and living by Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

Does he admit the Christ is coming before the Millennial Kingdom?
Or does he deny that fact?
That is the question.

First it is not a fact and if he knows Scripture he will assert that Jesus Christ returns concurrent with the general resurrection.

 

[OldRegular]

I think I understand each of the models and the verses that back them up, the problem is there are verses to back all of them up. I am reformed also, and quite frankly, I cannot see how one lines up better than another. What do you think is the best match? I am going to guess not the premil, pretrib.

I would be interested in what Scripture you think supports pre-trib-rapture of the Church.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's an interesting question, and one I'll answer truthfully. From the pulpit there is little to no teaching on other doctrines, other than to acknowledge that they exist. In Sunday School and Bible studies, however, other doctrines are examined topically. Obviously, they are examined and explained by one with an opposing viewpoint to them.



But, as has been mentioned, if a church believes something (KJVO, Cal/Arm, pre-mil/other, OSAS, etc), they aren't going to dwell and teach much on the opposing viewpoint. Rather, they're going to show their viewpoint and why they believe that way.

SW,

As new Christians we are at first dependent on our local church and other believers to help us grow....and that is proper.
When you learn more and grow if we would be as the Bereans we learn that we should leave no stone unturned in seeking out the truth of God.
I learned the premill system for the first few years of my Christian life.I learned it fairly well.
I could go into your church and teach it in a way that no one there would not realize that I have moved away from that wrong system.

I can give an accurate teaching of it is what I am saying. I am glad that I can do that because I know many believe this is the truth.

If other Christians have believed these other views I wanted to find out...why would they deny what I was taught was THE TRUTH?

If a church does not give an accurate description of the other position....how can they know if they have truth at all?

If a church was not insecure they would not be afraid of study. What do you think? SW can you present the post mill view to post mill believers in a way they will agree with you? even if you do not hold the position?

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Then set your heart on a Bible College or Seminary, not a local church. As a pastor I would not poison my people's minds with amillenialism or postmillennialism. What they need is the truth of God's Word.

The thing is DHK....often you lack truth here on BB. This has been shown over and over. You resist the historic confessions of faith as a base, and instead go by your own subjective ideas.
AA has proven you wrong many times just by solid scholarship and you scoff at it...which means you continue in error.

Besides that, I expound the Scripture. I go through it book by book, passage by passage, verse by verse.

We have seen examples of what you do.You do attempt to do as you say, but you have shown you are not doing it so well.

You will never find amillennialism or postmillennialism with the simple exposition of the Bible. It is a man-made concoction.

You are in a dream world. There are many men who would make short work of your erroneous teaching. It happens here daily.
These men write and make a scriptural case you cannot refute. O.R has shown it over and over.

I gave you an example from another discipline.
Would you teach your people the benefits of KJVOism?
Would you teach your people the benefits of becoming a Charismatic?

I would teach on every topic. Part of protecting people is to equip them, not isolate them from hearing what teaching is out there. You cannot deal withy many here because you cannot grasp what they understand.

If the position is wrong, why allow it from the pulpit? Never!

Lets test that:thumbs:

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Paul identified error, named names, and gave instruction.He did not hide like a turtle in a shell and keep things from his people.

 

[DHK]

DHK

The thing is DHK....often you lack truth here on BB. This has been shown over and over. You resist the historic confessions of faith as a base, and instead go by your own subjective ideas.

Your historic confessions of faith are in great error even advocating baptismal regeneration. All of them are Calvinistic and I am not. I have no reason to follow man-made documents over the Bible, especially ones that are so much full of error.
Often I quote Scripture and than expound them. That is not being subjective. That is doing what every pastor is commanded to do. The fact that you and others often ignore such posts speaks to your own credibility as well as your own ability to answer them.

AA has proven you wrong many times just by solid scholarship and you scoff at it...which means you continue in error.

AA is one person that you look very highly to. He knows Greek, but so do many others, and there are many that disagree with him. It is a case of "my scholars vs. your scholars."

We have seen examples of what you do.You do attempt to do as you say, but you have shown you are not doing it so well.

However, when I do expound the Scripture you often do not have a rational answer to it. For example, even our Calvinistic friend and scholar John MacArthur agrees that Ezekiel chapter 36 is speaking about the restoration of Israel, not about anything applicable to us today.
You take the same Scripture, and without any authority or mandate, allegorize the entire chapter. That is not rightly dividing the Word of truth.

You are in a dream world. There are many men who would make short work of your erroneous teaching. It happens here daily.
These men write and make a scriptural case you cannot refute. O.R has shown it over and over.

OR simply copies and pastes scriptures with no argument at all. That is not debate.
I don't teach erroneously. I teach the truth and if you can't handle the truth then so be it.
However, let me point out this to put it in a better perspective for you.
I am a pastor and a teacher, and have been one for many years.
I know the truth, and you will never be able to take that truth from me.
I have never been on a debate team. There are others that have far better debate skill and oratorical abilities than I do.
I do know this:
There are skilled Muslim apologists that know the Bible better than most Christians, and in fact, better than the average pastor. They are skilled in debate tactics, and are able to debate the average Christian pastor, defeating him in debate. I doubt if you could win a debate with such a person.

The same holds true for some Catholic apologists, who for that very reason, were banned from this board. They had many good apologists.
The same holds true for some atheists, some of whom were well educated and in the Creation forum, were stirring up a lot of trouble.
Do you think you could hold your own against a well educated atheist in a creation vs. evolution debate, Icon?

Just because a person can express their ideas in a better and more organized fashion doesn't make them right.

I would teach on every topic. Part of protecting people is to equip them, not isolate them from hearing what teaching is out there. You cannot deal withy many here because you cannot grasp what they understand.

And that is why you are not called to be a pastor.
The pastor is called to feed the sheep.

Lets test that

14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Paul identified error, named names, and gave instruction.He did not hide like a turtle in a shell and keep things from his people.

Paul commanded: shun, avoid, profane and vain babblings.
"...who concerning the truth have erred."
Paul told Timothy to stay away from such things. He was writing to Timothy, a pastor, and telling him not to teach these things, not to preach them, but to shun them, stay away from them.

And then: Let every one that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
That iniquity would include false doctrine as well as evil works.

 

[OldRegular]

Your historic confessions of faith are in great error even advocating baptismal regeneration.

What Baptist.Confession of Faith advocates Baptismal Regeneration?

 

[convicted1]

DHK....

As a pastor I would not poison my people's minds with amillenialism or postmillennialism. What they need is the truth of God's Word.

I that the best you've got? Come on man. Surely you have better quips than this. I wouldn't poison people with this 'so called' freewillism either.


Keep looking to those posters of LaHaye, Van Impe, Lindsey et al and gain your strength.


Here's something for you to hang on your wall next to those posters....

 

[OldRegular]

That is false! Pre-trib-dispensationalism is a man made concoction and the man who concocted it was John Nelson Darby as I have shown numerous times on this BB. One must twist and contort Scripture in order to get that false doctrine. Darby claimed he got it out of Isaiah 32!

Jesus Christ is reigning now and that is what Scripture teaches.

Matthew 28:16-18, NASB
16. But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17. And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
18. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Ephesians 1:19-23
19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20. Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21. Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23. Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

1 Peter 3:21, 22
21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

************************************************************************************************

I quoted the above Scripture to refute DHK's post:

Originally Posted by DHK
Then set your heart on a Bible College or Seminary, not a local church. As a pastor I would not poison my people's minds with amillenialism or postmillennialism. What they need is the truth of God's Word.
Besides that, I expound the Scripture. I go through it book by book, passage by passage, verse by verse. You will never find amillennialism or postmillennialism with the simple exposition of the Bible. It is a man-made concoction.

Apparently DHK thinks the Scripture are meaningless since he has failed to respond. Now DHK states he is a pastor and a teacher and he should be able to understand the meaning of these Scripture without me having to explain them. Scripture does have meaning don't you know! But I was also a teacher and to put things simple so you can understand DHK those passages I presented all say that Jesus Christ is reigning now.

1. From Matthew 28:16-18 we learn: All authority, that is all authority, has been given to Jesus Christ not only in heaven but also on earth.

2. From Ephesians 1:19-23 we learn: God has SET the resurrected Jesus Christ at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. Furthermore, God has put all things under the feet of Jesus Christ. That means that all authority has been given to Jesus Christ not only in heaven but also on earth.

3. Finally from 1 Peter 3:21, 22 we learn: The resurrected Jesus Christ has gone into heaven, is on the right hand of God and angels, and authorities and powers are made subject to him. That means that Jesus Christ is reigning NOW! That means that all authority has been given to Jesus Christ not only in heaven but also on earth.

Furthermore DHK, my signature by itself refutes pre-trib-dispensationalism if you would only give way to the teaching of the Holy Spirit rather than Darby!

*********************************************************************************************************************

 

[Salty]

What Baptist.Confession of Faith advocates Baptismal Regeneration?

Even the Baptist Church of Christ does not believe in BR.

 

[DHK]

DHK....
I that the best you've got? Come on man. Surely you have better quips than this. I wouldn't poison people with this 'so called' freewillism either.

Did it ever occur to you that if God wasn't sovereign enough to allow man a choice, that is the ability to exercise his free will, then he would be less then sovereign. He wouldn't be God or omnipotent as God should be. It is limitation that the Calvinist is putting on God--not allowing God in his sovereignty to give man the ability to choose, even though man is made in His image. Quite amazing isn't it? The Calvinist thinks he can command and restrict God!

Keep looking to those posters of LaHaye, Van Impe, Lindsey et al and gain your strength.

Never listen to them.

I don't bother with other people's business; I go about the business of God--preaching His Word. The theological systems of other men are of no consequence to me. If the sheep know who the shepherd is, they will follow his voice and not that of another.

 

[DHK]

Even the Baptist Church of Christ does not believe in BR.

https://carm.org/westminster-confession#chap28
On Baptism, The Westminster Confession of Faith states:

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience to Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs to, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person.

The Calvinists of today, most of you posting here, call yourselves Reformers and are turning back to the ideals put forth at the Reformation. These concepts concerning baptism were enshrined here. Baptists were persecuted and died; shed their blood standing up for the heresies expressed here.

The Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians (Calvin), Presbyterians (Knox) Puritans from England, all persecuted the Anabaptists and all those that believed salvation was by faith (which happened as an adult), and that baptism followed. Thus infant baptism was of no consequence.

Yet this is one of the Confessions held in esteem by Calvinistic Reformers today. You should all be ashamed. Read Baptist history. Read how the Baptists who went before us died for the beliefs that we hold today, and were so repudiated in the above confession.

 

[DHK]

I quoted the above Scripture to refute DHK's post:

It was:
Matthew 28:16-18, NASB; Ephesians 1:19-23; 1 Peter 3:21, 22

Half a page of Scripture with no commentary--your usual copy and paste.
It proved nothing more than your ability to copy and paste.
I believe those scriptures too. So how does that refute anything I said. Posting scripture without any comment doesn't prove anything.

Apparently DHK thinks the Scripture are meaningless since he has failed to respond.

First, what you did was meaningless. There was nothing to answer.
Second, I am not on the board 24/7. I did not see your post because I was not here. I have other things to do.

Now DHK states he is a pastor and a teacher and he should be able to understand the meaning of these Scripture without me having to explain them. Scripture does have meaning don't you know! But I was also a teacher and to put things simple so you can understand DHK those passages I presented all say that Jesus Christ is reigning now.

I understand them perfectly well. But they don't have anything to do with what I posted. I don't understand why you posted them. And I never will unless you are able to make the connection.

1. From Matthew 28:16-18 we learn: All authority, that is all authority, has been given to Jesus Christ not only in heaven but also on earth.

That doesn't mean that he is exercising that authority right now on earth, just as God didn't exercise "All Authority" in the time of Job. He allowed Satan to have his way. Today Satan is called the "god of this world."

2. From Ephesians 1:19-23 we learn: God has SET the resurrected Jesus Christ at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. Furthermore, God has put all things under the feet of Jesus Christ. That means that all authority has been given to Jesus Christ not only in heaven but also on earth.

That is where he is now. It doesn't mean that he is exercising His authority on this earth. Harmonize that with other Scripture. What is Christ doing on the right hand of the throne of God. He is interceding for the saints. His reign is yet to come. His present ministry is intercession.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

3. Finally from 1 Peter 3:21, 22 we learn: The resurrected Jesus Christ has gone into heaven, is on the right hand of God and angels, and authorities and powers are made subject to him. That means that Jesus Christ is reigning NOW! That means that all authority has been given to Jesus Christ not only in heaven but also on earth.

1 Peter 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
--You are just wishing.
That is a heavenly scene, and it says nothing about Christ reigning on earth.
Christ is coming. When He comes he will set up his kingdom on earth and reign on earth, as the Bible teaches. Nowhere does it state that He is reigning now.
This is such a well-known and ancient belief that it pre-dates the Reformation, is part of the "Lord's Prayer," and believed on by the ECF.
"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done."
--That is a fairly clear statement of what most Christians have been praying throughout the centuries. God's Kingdom is still going to come. "Even so come Lord Jesus, Amen"

Furthermore DHK, my signature by itself refutes pre-trib-dispensationalism

Hardly. It is only your very narrow interpretation of that passage that makes you think you have a straw to stand on.

 

[OldRegular]

It was:
Matthew 28:16-18, NASB; Ephesians 1:19-23; 1 Peter 3:21, 22

Half a page of Scripture with no commentary--your usual copy and paste.
It proved nothing more than your ability to copy and paste.
I believe those scriptures too. So how does that refute anything I said. Posting scripture without any comment doesn't prove anything.

First: You said the following on post #88 of the "Divine Illumination/ Divine Enablement" on the General Baptist Discussions Forum:

Originally posted by DHK
The scripture remains meaningless until someone gives it meaning.

That is utter nonsense, DHK, unbecoming of a "born again believer" when God clearly tells us:

Isaiah 55:11. So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Second: The Living Word of God, Jesus Christ, tells us:

John 3:1-3
1. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Then God tells us through the Apostle Paul:

Colossians 12:12, 13
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Jesus Christ tells us that the New Birth {regeneration} is required to enter the Kingdom of God. He then tells us that when that New Birth occurs we are "translated into the Kingdom of His dear Son", which is the Kingdom of God. You do believe that Jesus Christ is God don't you DHK and there is only one God and one Kingdom of God. I do know some pretribbers believe Israel is the wife of God and the Church is the Bride of Jesus Christ. I know that Mormons believe God is a Bigamist but I hope you don't, DHK!

Next Jesus Christ tells the Pharisees:

Luke 17:20, 21
20. And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

You are like the Pharisees DHK, they did not believe what Jesus Christ told them in the above Scripture or later when He told them the following:

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus Christ judges the Pharisees and the nation Israel in that passage. Later in 70 AD He will punish them. There is no place in the Word of God where that judgment is revoked!

Jesus Christ then tells us through the Apostle Peter who that nation that receives the Kingdom is:

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

That holy nation is the Church, DHK, the Church for which Jesus Christ died, not some rejuvenated national Israel that Darby dreamed up. There is no place in the Word of God where that judgment of Matthew 21:43 is revoked.

First, what you did was meaningless. There was nothing to answer.

It should be well known by now DHK that you think the Word of God is meaningless unless someone explains it to you. A subconscious holdover from your RC upbringing I suspect.

Second, I am not on the board 24/7. I did not see your post because I was not here. I have other things to do.

:laugh: :laugh::laugh:

I understand them perfectly well. But they don't have anything to do with what I posted. I don't understand why you posted them. And I never will unless you are able to make the connection.

I posted them because you said the following in post #27:

Originally Posted by DHK
Then set your heart on a Bible College or Seminary, not a local church. As a pastor I would not poison my people's minds with amillenialism or postmillennialism. What they need is the truth of God's Word.
Besides that, I expound the Scripture. I go through it book by book, passage by passage, verse by verse. You will never find amillennialism or postmillennialism with the simple exposition of the Bible. It is a man-made concoction.

God is reigning now whether you believe it or not DHK!

It is a lie to say that amillennialism is not in the Bible DHK. The Pre-trib-Dispensationalism concocted by John Nelson Darby is not in Isaiah 32 or no where else in the Bible. It is a man-made-doctrine that has fooled a lot of people. But it is dying out. Thank God!:godisgood:

Originally Posted by DHK
That doesn't mean that he is exercising that authority right now on earth, just as God didn't exercise "All Authority" in the time of Job. He allowed Satan to have his way. Today Satan is called the "god of this world."

Surely you jest DHK! God told Satan:

Job 1:2 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:6, 7
6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Who was in authority DHK, God or Satan. I assume you are able to understand the above Words of Dod!

Originally Posted by DHK
That is where he is now. It doesn't mean that he is exercising His authority on this earth. Harmonize that with other Scripture. What is Christ doing on the right hand of the throne of God. He is interceding for the saints. His reign is yet to come. His present ministry is intercession.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

God Reigns DHK, whether you are sufficiently mature in your walk to understand that or not.

Originally posted by OldRegular
1 Peter 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Originally Posted by DHK--You are just wishing.
That is a heavenly scene, and it says nothing about Christ reigning on earth.
Christ is coming. When He comes he will set up his kingdom on earth and reign on earth, as the Bible teaches. Nowhere does it state that He is reigning now.
This is such a well-known and ancient belief that it pre-dates the Reformation, is part of the "Lord's Prayer," and believed on by the ECF.
"Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done."
--That is a fairly clear statement of what most Christians have been praying throughout the centuries. God's Kingdom is still going to come. "Even so come Lord Jesus, Amen"

I have said repeatedly that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of the Father DHK. But what does the Scripture say:
angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

The angels are in heaven DHK, but where are the authorities and powers that are subject to Him. They are not in heaven but right here on earth DHK, right here on earth.

Originally posted by OldRegular]
Furthermore DHK, my signature by itself refutes pre-trib-dispensationalism if you would only give way to the teaching of the Holy Spirit rather than Darby!

Hardly. It is only your very narrow interpretation of that passage that makes you think you have a straw to stand on.

Your problem DHK is that you really mean't it when you said the following on post #88 of the "Divine Illumination/ Divine Enablement" on the General Baptist Discussions Forum:

Originally posted by DHK
The scripture remains meaningless until someone gives it meaning.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't bother with other people's business; I go about the business of God--preaching His Word. The theological systems of other men are of no consequence to me. If the sheep know who the shepherd is, they will follow his voice and not that of another.

History says you are wrong DHK! Because history says that pre-trib-dispensationalism is the offspring of John Nelson Darby and that is the fact. Darby claims he got his doctrine by special "understanding" while reading Isaiah 32 as he recuperated from a riding accident at his sister's home. I did not say that DHK. Darby did as reported by pre-trib-dispensationalist Dr. Thomas Ice.

Dispensationalism of any kind does not flow naturally from the reading and exegesis of Scripture. You have stated DHK the following on numerous occasions {initially in post #88 of the "Divine Illumination/ Divine Enablement" Thread on the General Baptist Discussions Forum}

Originally posted by DHK
The scripture remains meaningless until someone gives it meaning.

So since Scripture is meaningless unless someone explains it who initially explained Scripture to you, DHK. Who convinced you that pre-trib-dispensationalism is the correct interpretation of God's Revelation to mankind.

I ask this because of your claim above and it is abundantly clear through the study of Scripture that God deals with mankind by His Grace and through Covenants, not through dispensations. In fact the word dispensation does not even appear in the Word of God as recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[The American Dream]

OR of South Carolina,

I can see your logic behind a mil. However even you have to admit pre mil is more likely than post mil.

 

[DHK]

History says you are wrong DHK! Because history says that pre-trib-dispensationalism is the offspring of John Nelson Darby and that is the fact. Darby claims he got his doctrine by special "understanding" while reading Isaiah 32 as he recuperated from a riding accident at his sister's home. I did not say that DHK. Darby did as reported by pre-trib-dispensationalist Dr. Thomas Ice.

We are on page 6. Just yesterday we were on page 3, and already you have lost focus. Since then I haven't said a word about "pre-trib dispensationalism," but I have said a lot about premillennialism. Even the ECF believe in premillennialism, which is entirely against your position. Here is my reply to T. Cassidy:

No, sometimes one has to take a couple steps back in order to go a step forward. That was posted simply for the Preterists and Amillennialists which abound here that do deny the Second Coming before the Millennial Kingdom, and in fact deny any such thing as a thousand year reign of our Lord.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2191943&postcount=26
That was in post 26.
As I have said you have already lost your focus.

Dispensationalism of any kind does not flow naturally from the reading and exegesis of Scripture. You have stated DHK the following on numerous occasions {initially in post #88 of the "Divine Illumination/ Divine Enablement" Thread on the General Baptist Discussions Forum}

The majority of Bible scholars and history itself disagree with you.

So since Scripture is meaningless unless someone explains it who initially explained Scripture to you, DHK. Who convinced you that pre-trib-dispensationalism is the correct interpretation of God's Revelation to mankind.

The scripture you post is absolutely meaningless for it doesn't answer the post. I type a meaningful post, and you answer with a few verses without comment. Yest that is meaningless. Take things in the context in which they are said.

I ask this because of your claim above and it is abundantly clear through the study of Scripture that God deals with mankind by His Grace and through Covenants, not through dispensations. In fact the word dispensation does not even appear in the Word of God as recorded in the Old Testament.

It is abundantly clear that the covenants are given to Israel. You don't believe the Scripture when it says that. You claim Israel's promises for yourself. Very presumptuous isn't it? This is not rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[OldRegular]

!

OR of South Carolina,

I can see your logic behind a mil. However even you have to admit pre mil is more likely than post mil.

The problem I have with both pre and post is that I do not believe that Jesus Christ will reign in His Glory on this present earth. The Triune God will reign on the New Earth with all the redeemed {Revelation 21:1-4}.

When Adam fell I believe all creation was adversely affected. Paul mentions this somewhat obscurely in Romans. As a former engineer I have wondered if the Second Law of Thermodynamics kicked in at the fall.

I disagree strongly with the eschatology of Pre-trib-dispensationalism and debate it with them but the major problem I have with pre-trib is their doctrine that the Church is a parenthesis, an interruption, in God's program for Israel. Of course one takes his life in his hands to mention this doctrine on this BB!

 

[quantumfaith]

The problem I have with both pre and post is that I do not believe that Jesus Christ will reign in His Glory on this present earth. The Triune God will reign on the New Earth with all the redeemed {Revelation 21:1-4}.

When Adam fell I believe all creation was adversely affected. Paul mentions this somewhat obscurely in Romans. As a former engineer I have wondered if the Second Law of Thermodynamics kicked in at the fall.

I disagree strongly with the eschatology of Pre-trib-dispensationalism and debate it with them but the major problem I have with pre-trib is their doctrine that the Church is a parenthesis, an interruption, in God's program for Israel. Of course one takes his life in his hands to mention this doctrine on this BB!

The second law kicked in at the instant of creation....the big bang event. The instant that space time began, entropy began with it.

 

[OldRegular]

We are on page 6. Just yesterday we were on page 3, and already you have lost focus. Since then I haven't said a word about "pre-trib dispensationalism," but I have said a lot about premillennialism. Even the ECF believe in premillennialism, which is entirely against your position. Here is my reply to T. Cassidy:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2191943&postcount=26
That was in post 26.
As I have said you have already lost your focus.

The thread was about Arrogance or Contending for the Truth?..You started dumping on amillennialism and postmillennialism in post #27 saying they were man-made concoctions and unBiblical. Pre-trib-dispensationalism is definitely a man-made concoction founded primarily by John Nelson Darby and popularized in this country by the Scofield Bible.

The majority of Bible scholars and history itself disagree with you.

Not Really!

The scripture you post is absolutely meaningless for it doesn't answer the post. I type a meaningful post, and you answer with a few verses without comment. Yest that is meaningless. Take things in the context in which they are said.

I thought you were a preacher and teacher. If you cannot understand Scripture you need to change jobs!

*********************************************************

It is abundantly clear that the covenants are given to Israel. You don't believe the Scripture when it says that. You claim Israel's promises for yourself. Very presumptuous isn't it? This is not rightly dividing the word of truth.

That is not only false but ridiculously false. Israel did not exist when the first three covenants were given, four if you include a Covenant of Works with Adam.

************************************************************

The first Covenant, the initial revelation in time of the Covenant of Grace, was instituted with all mankind and recorded in Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

*******************************************************

The second Covenant was instituted with all mankind and recorded in Genesis 9:12-17
12. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13. I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15. And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

********************************************************

The third Covenant was with Abraham and, properly understood, instituted with all mankind, especially the Elect and is recorded in Genesis 12:1-3
1. Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

This Covenant was confirmed and amplified in Genesis 22:17, 18
17. That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

God through the Apostle Paul explains this Covenant further in Galatians:

Galatians 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Galatians 3:29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

**********************************************

The initial Covenant with Israel was in Exodus 19:5-8. Following that there was a second in Deuteronomy 29:10-15.

***************************************************

The next Covenant was not with Israel but with David and was really a further amplification of the Covenant with Abraham and was revealed in 2 Samuel 7:4ff. In this covenant we can understand that God's purpose for Israel, through Judah, then David, and finally through the Virgin Mary was to bring the Savior, Jesus Christ, into the world. This Savior, Jesus Christ, would institute the New Covenant {Jeremiah #1:31-34 and Hebrews 8:7-12} with the "true believers" through His sacrificial death on the cross.

********************************************************

Really DHK you need to take a look at Scripture before you "fly off the handle" and post nonsense!

*****************************************************************************************************