end time article

[Greektim]

The way I view it, Calvinism describes sinful man's condition before a Holy God (TULIP). Covenant (reformed) theology or dispensationalism are methods (or tools) for interpreting the Bible. It is therefore possible to be dispensational and a Calvinist or Arminian, same would apply to Covenantial thinking. However it is not possible to be dispensational and not pre-mil, nor is it possible to be A-mill or Post-Mill without being Covenantial. A major deciding factor being is the Church today in an exclusive covenant relationship with Jehovah and has the Church either replaced Israel as a Covenant people or has Jehovah terminated his covenants with the Jews.

Covenant theology teaches 3 covenants throughout the human experience, the covenant of works, redemption and grace. My question to you is where does the Bible teach any of the three covenants. Jehovah is certainly capable of making a covenant, if you study the covenant God make with Abraham you will see the pattern, two parties with terms and conditions. A search of the Covenant of Grace in the Bible is a frustrating experience. True, we are saved by God's grace but where is there a covenant of grace?

The New Covenant Jesus spoke about is defined in Jer ch 31. Study that passage of scripture and try to make the church as we know it fit the description. If you say the church meets the Jer 31 description then you can call yourself a covenant theologian. If you find that what Jer 31 describes is not realized in the church then you may consider that the enactment of that covenant is future, which means that the Kingdom of Christ is future.



There are smart Roman Catholics, does their smartness make them correct? There are smart reformed and dispensational thinkers, someone has to be wrong, agree? How then do you determine who is right? Do you read a passage of scripture and accept what your favorite scholar thinks or what the reformers of the 16th century believed or do you allow the plain meaning of the words of the Scriptures with the Holy Spirit direct your faith? That is the question my friend.

I'm Amil and not covenantal (in the covenant theology sense). I ascribe to what is being called "new covenant theology". With the "theological interpretation of Scripture" and biblical theology and and grand narrative missional theology approaches to Scripture on the rise, you will see a lot more of this-Amil non-covental types. I just had a class w/ a prof from Southern Baptist Theo Seminary who fit that category. It is growing fast.

 

[Grasshopper]

A major deciding factor being is the Church today in an exclusive covenant relationship with Jehovah and has the Church either replaced Israel as a Covenant people or has Jehovah terminated his covenants with the Jews.

The other option is that the Church is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel.

Covenant theology teaches 3 covenants throughout the human experience, the covenant of works, redemption and grace

What was Gods covenant with Adam?

The New Covenant Jesus spoke about is defined in Jer ch 31. Study that passage of scripture and try to make the church as we know it fit the description. If you say the church meets the Jer 31 description then you can call yourself a covenant theologian. If you find that what Jer 31 describes is not realized in the church then you may consider that the enactment of that covenant is future, which means that the Kingdom of Christ is future.

I think people need to understand what you are saying. If you are a Dispie, then you cannot believe the New Covenant has been established. *

 

[J.D.]

The other option is that the Church is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel.



What was Gods covenant with Adam?




I think people need to understand what you are saying. If you are a Dispie, then you cannot believe the New Covenant has been established. *

Yes, and this could be the most crucial error in dispy'm [edit - except for encouraging Jews to have hope in Moses and the Temple - o wait, rejection of the NC is WHY they continue to have hope in Moses and the Temple]. I don't know how anyone can read Hebrews 8 and not know that the NC is a present reality.

 

[J.D.]

I'm Amil and not covenantal (in the covenant theology sense). I ascribe to what is being called "new covenant theology". With the "theological interpretation of Scripture" and biblical theology and and grand narrative missional theology approaches to Scripture on the rise, you will see a lot more of this-Amil non-covental types. I just had a class w/ a prof from Southern Baptist Theo Seminary who fit that category. It is growing fast.

I believe NCT is popular among disaffected dispy's, but has not made significant inroads among full CT'ers.

 

[thomas15]

I'm Amil and not covenantal...... I ascribe to what is being called "new covenant theology".

OK, your not covenant, your new covenant. Understood.

 

[thomas15]

I believe NCT is popular among disaffected dispy's, but has not made significant inroads among full CT'ers.

A fun exercise: compare and contrast NCT with progressive dispensationalist.

 

[thomas15]

.....What was Gods covenant with Adam?

Why does it not surprise me that you don't know the answer to that question?

 

[Grasshopper]

Why does it not surprise me that you don't know the answer to that question?

Can you not answer?

 

[Tom Butler]

The way I view it, Calvinism describes sinful man's condition before a Holy God (TULIP). Covenant (reformed) theology or dispensationalism are methods (or tools) for interpreting the Bible. It is therefore possible to be dispensational and a Calvinist or Arminian, same would apply to Covenantial thinking. However it is not possible to be dispensational and not pre-mil, nor is it possible to be A-mill or Post-Mill without being Covenantial. A major deciding factor being is the Church today in an exclusive covenant relationship with Jehovah and has the Church either replaced Israel as a Covenant people or has Jehovah terminated his covenants with the Jews.

How then do you determine who is right? Do you read a passage of scripture and accept what your favorite scholar thinks or what the reformers of the 16th century believed or do you allow the plain meaning of the words of the Scriptures with the Holy Spirit direct your faith? That is the question my friend.

I confess that I'm in over my head here.

So the best I can say is that I'm a New Testament believer who believes Christians will go through the Tribulation and that Jesus comes back at the end of that time. And the millennium begins.

Beyond that, all this is above my pay grade.

 

[thomas15]

Can you not answer?

Some, of the covenant camp say that when God told Adam not to eat from the tree of life (Gen 2:15-17) that this is a covenant of works and that Hos 6:7 is proof. What is not shown or explained is where salvation or eternal life is promised by performing something or simply obeying direction. How do you explain that not doing something (eating the apple) is performing a work?

Many covenant theologians admit that their covenant of works is, in their words implied, not stated. This in comparison to every actual covenant in the Bible that clearly explains what is at stake and depends in it's entirely on God. If God did in fact make a covenant with Adam which depended on him not disobeying, would that not still be a gift, a demonstration of the grace of God?

For pre-fall salvation, what work do you perform and who are the covenant parties? What about Eve, was she a party to what you think is a covenant? What if Adam had not eaten the fruit but Eve did, would we say that Adam was saved by not eating but Eve saved by Grace?

And how do you explain the covenant of redemption, whereas God the Father made an agreement with God the Son to provide salvation for the not yet created Adam? Would not Jehovah have had to have the covenant of redemption in place before the covenant of works? And where do you find this covenant of redemption in the Bible? An agreement between two parties with a specified outcome?

 

[Grasshopper]

Some, of the covenant camp say that when God told Adam not to eat from the tree of life (Gen 2:15-17) that this is a covenant of works and that Hos 6:7 is proof. What is not shown or explained is where salvation or eternal life is promised by performing something or simply obeying direction. How do you explain that not doing something (eating the apple) is performing a work?

Many covenant theologians admit that their covenant of works is, in their words implied, not stated. This in comparison to every actual covenant in the Bible that clearly explains what is at stake and depends in it's entirely on God. If God did in fact make a covenant with Adam which depended on him not disobeying, would that not still be a gift, a demonstration of the grace of God?

For pre-fall salvation, what work do you perform and who are the covenant parties? What about Eve, was she a party to what you think is a covenant? What if Adam had not eaten the fruit but Eve did, would we say that Adam was saved by not eating but Eve saved by Grace?

And how do you explain the covenant of redemption, whereas God the Father made an agreement with God the Son to provide salvation for the not yet created Adam? Would not Jehovah have had to have the covenant of redemption in place before the covenant of works? And where do you find this covenant of redemption in the Bible? An agreement between two parties with a specified outcome?

Very good, you have told us what you believe it is not, but my question remains, what was the covenant God made with Adam? Or do you believe there was no covenant made?

Hosea 6:7But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

 

[thomas15]

I confess that I'm in over my head here.

So the best I can say is that I'm a New Testament believer who believes Christians will go through the Tribulation and that Jesus comes back at the end of that time. And the millennium begins.

Beyond that, all this is above my pay grade.

Tom,

I was responding to your post #2, not looking to pick a fight. If you read, for example preterist Ken Gentry and don't take a critical look at his agruements then you could be convinced he is right as some here on this board are.

Men like Gentry have their own system for interperating Scripture and viewing history. However, if you take his arguements and compare them to the actual words and promises of the Bible then you begin to see the problems with his theology.

In the case of reformed covenant theology, when a critical debate is made with dispensationalist, at some point in the conversation the covenant believer will make the statement that _________ is what the reformers taught or believed, which is nice in itself but the reformers are not the inspired Word of God.

 

[thomas15]

Very good, you have told us what you believe it is not, but my question remains, what was the covenant God made with Adam? Or do you believe there was no covenant made?

Hosea 6:7But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

If Hosea 6:7 teaches that Gen 2:15-17 is a covenant of salvation by works then what happend to the missing verses that teach this covenant of works? Show me where in the Bible Jehovah said to Adam, you do this, you perform this task and I will do something, such as I will give you eternal life. It just simply isn't there.

Did you know Grasshopper that the covenant Jehovah made with Abraham doesn't involve personal eternal salvation? Same with Moses, same with David.

 

[Grasshopper]

If Hosea 6:7 teaches that Gen 2:15-17 is a covenant of salvation by works then what happend to the missing verses that teach this covenant of works? Show me where in the Bible Jehovah said to Adam, you do this, you perform this task and I will do something, such as I will give you eternal life. It just simply isn't there.

Did you know Grasshopper that the covenant Jehovah made with Abraham doesn't involve personal eternal salvation? Same with Moses, same with David.

So you're not going to answer my question?

 

[thomas15]

So you're not going to answer my question?

OK, I get it. At the age of 6 months you were dropped on your head by your older brother. Not your fault.

 

[MB]

Iconclast;
From American vision;

With these points in mind, to compare the pre-trib rapture to the Trinity is like comparing the mythical unicorn to the horse.

　
Guess what the unicorn existed other wise they would not have been mentioned in scripture. Num23:22,-24:8, Job 39:9-10,Ps 26:6, 92:10 That of course as you no doubt agree makes it mythical.
What great minds they have to deny scripture. In effect God’s word lies according to these great men of vision.:laugh:
MB

 

[Grasshopper]

OK, I get it. At the age of 6 months you were dropped on your head by your older brother. Not your fault.

So you won't answer the question of whether there was a covenant between God and Adam and if there was what was it. No instead you do your typical attack response so you don't have to answer the question.

So I'll leave you to your newspaper exegesis and perhaps in tomorrows newspaper you will discover the New Covenant you've been waiting for.:wavey:

To the others reading this, notice he won't or can't answer the question.

 

[thomas15]

So you won't answer the question of whether there was a covenant between God and Adam and if there was what was it. No instead you do your typical attack response so you don't have to answer the question.

So I'll leave you to your newspaper exegesis and perhaps in tomorrows newspaper you will discover the New Covenant you've been waiting for.:wavey:

To the others reading this, notice he won't or can't answer the question.

If there is/was a covenant of works between Adam and God resulting in personal salvation, the Bible is silent about it. Just because you want Gen 2:15-17 to teach said covenant doesn't make it so.

What we know about God's relationship with Adam is recorded in the Bible, nowhere else. The Bible doesn't teach what you want it to teach. Sorry if that offends.

So, I guess you are going to resort to the *tom solution?

 

[webdog]

I confess that I'm in over my head here.

So the best I can say is that I'm a New Testament believer who believes Christians will go through the Tribulation and that Jesus comes back at the end of that time. And the millennium begins.

Beyond that, all this is above my pay grade.

I agree, it's above my pay grade too.

The point I don't understand about the post mil (and even the "pre wrath" view) is the church going through the great tribulation. This is a period of God's wrath against a world who has rejected His Son. Why would a believer be subject to such wrath? Oh, I have heard the persecution point of view, but this is beyond persecution...this IS God's wrath being poured out (bowl, scroll judgements). If we are in Christ, His wrath has been appeased against us!
Jesus gave us the example of Noah and Sodom. Did God's wrath abide against the righteous in both of those situations?

Also, Paul tells us to encourage one another in 1 Thess. What encouragement or blessed hope is there in knowing we will be subjected to God's wrath? What is the point of God's wrath against a believer?

We can dissect each and every passage of Scripture, but they have to be viewed through Scripture as a whole, and I don't see God's wrath being poured out against the righteous anywhere in Scripture. That was the point of the cross.

 

[revmwc]

I agree, it's above my pay grade too.

The point I don't understand about the post mil (and even the "pre wrath" view) is the church going through the great tribulation. This is a period of God's wrath against a world who has rejected His Son. Why would a believer be subject to such wrath? Oh, I have heard the persecution point of view, but this is beyond persecution...this IS God's wrath being poured out (bowl, scroll judgements). If we are in Christ, His wrath has been appeased against us!
Jesus gave us the example of Noah and Sodom. Did God's wrath abide against the righteous in both of those situations?

Also, Paul tells us to encourage one another in 1 Thess. What encouragement or blessed hope is there in knowing we will be subjected to God's wrath? What is the point of God's wrath against a believer?

We can dissect each and every passage of Scripture, but they have to be viewed through Scripture as a whole, and I don't see God's wrath being poured out against the righteous anywhere in Scripture. That was the point of the cross.

Again I will state as I have in other post Jesus promised the believer that we would not go through the hour of testing, trial, tribulation however you want to seethe greek word's meaning in

Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Some say that verse was only for the church at Philedelphia, but I believe it was written for believers.
How does He keep the believers from it by snatching them out as 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 tells us we go when the trumpet sounds. Again as Revelation 4:1 shows the vision begining for John he hears the first voice as if it were a trumpet. He sees the 24 elders seated with Crowns upon their heads. 1 Cor 3 says we get our rewards at the judgement seat or Bema seat and that is after the rapture and before the 2nd coming.