new book on Covenant Theology

[Yeshua1]

Yea, good stuff; historic pre-mil most definitely is NOT the same as the dispensational heresy of today.

you would aknowledge that the majority of early church fathers held to view of his pre mil, that jesus would come back to set up a literally Milliniual reign on earth one day future?

 

[Yeshua1]

Because it's false/junk!:thumbs::laugh:

Only IF one sees interpreting the scriptures from a view of taking tha plain and intended literl meaning as "Junk!"

 

[MorseOp]

Only IF one sees interpreting the scriptures from a view of taking tha plain and intended literl meaning as "Junk!"

Now, who wins with these ridiculous statements from both sides? The dispensationalist will say, "It is plain as day in scripture." The CT will say, "It is plain as day in scripture." Wow. How convincing.

 

[kyredneck]

you would aknowledge that the majority of early church fathers held to view of his pre mil, that jesus would come back to set up a literally Milliniual reign on earth one day future?

I acknowledge that there is historic pre-mil, I don't know if it were ever in the majority or not. Many adherents to the dispensational heresy never tire of spreading it around that it was a majority belief while also conveniently omiting to mention the grand canyon of difference between the two.

Historic pre-mil NOT the same as dispy heresy.

 

[Yeshua1]

Now, who wins with these ridiculous statements from both sides? The dispensationalist will say, "It is plain as day in scripture." The CT will say, "It is plain as day in scripture." Wow. How convincing.

I understand your views here, but you would have to also see that Dispy is just another 'system" of seeing the scriptures, and those of us holding to it see it as being just as much in bible as those holding to 'Covenant theology!"

just saying that I do NOT call them holding to 'heresy", just another way to view the scriptures...

 

[Yeshua1]

I acknowledge that there is historic pre-mil, I don't know if it were ever in the majority or not. Many adherents to the dispensational heresy never tire of spreading it around that it was a majority belief while also conveniently omiting to mention the grand canyon of difference between the two.

Historic pre-mil NOT the same as dispy heresy.

again, we could say the same about Covenant theology, but we prefer to see it as another way to view the scriptures, BUT not the only way!

 

[MorseOp]

I understand your views here, but you would have to also see that Dispy is just another 'system" of seeing the scriptures, and those of us holding to it see it as being just as much in bible as those holding to 'Covenant theology!"

just saying that I do NOT call them holding to 'heresy", just another way to view the scriptures...

Please do not misunderstand me. Debate is good. My comment had more to do with using hyperbole and drive-by comments to criticize the other side.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please do not misunderstand me. Debate is good. My comment had more to do with using hyperbole and drive-by comments to criticize the other side.

understand, but hard to get a creative discussion if position is that your theology is "Junk!" before looking at what you believe!

 

[thomas15]

....last one

Tertullian .... and a whole list of the ECFs

You make my point for me reformed_baptist that covenant theology relies more on the teaching of the ECFs and the teaching of the reformers than the Bible for proof that their theology is correct.

 

[thomas15]

I acknowledge that there is historic pre-mil, I don't know if it were ever in the majority or not.

Key phrase you don't know. Since you by your own admission don't know, you have to be open to the possibility that any options are a possibility. Go to the Scriptures and see what they say. Sola Scriptura Brother.

 

[Yeshua1]

Key phrase you don't know. Since you by your own admission don't know, you have to be open to the possibility that any options are a possibility. Go to the Scriptures and see what they say. Sola Scriptura Brother.

that is what I dont understand about our reformed bethren regarding eschatology, as even calvin himself was "ignorant' on end times, concerned with salvation more...

the early church fathers, especially those directly associated with Apostles on the whole pretty much held to pre Mil, until the time of Augustine/origen!

 

[Luke2427]

Only IF one sees interpreting the scriptures from a view of taking tha plain and intended literl meaning as "Junk!"

Not true.

When you take something literal that is obviously suppsed to be apocalyptic in nature, you are not to be commended for "believing the Bible".

You might as well believe that God has wings and that Jesus is a Lamb with dozens of eyes all over his head.

 

[kyredneck]

Not true.

When you take something literal that is obviously suppsed to be apocalyptic in nature, you are not to be commended for "believing the Bible".

You might as well believe that God has wings and that Jesus is a Lamb with dozens of eyes all over his head.

Heehee :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Not true.

When you take something literal that is obviously suppsed to be apocalyptic in nature, you are not to be commended for "believing the Bible".

You might as well believe that God has wings and that Jesus is a Lamb with dozens of eyes all over his head.

Literal means to take the bible in its plain and intended meaning, accounting for the differing genres in it!

As the Apsotles looked to the physical second coming of jesus back to the earth, not in a 'spiritual sense!"

 

[Alive in Christ]

just curious why Covenant theology baptists are OK, good to read, while Dispy ones like myself have others say its "false/junk?"

You will never get that from me. Regarding covenant theology I am very much convinced that there is indeed an old covenant period, followed by the new covenant...and it is wise not to mix the two.

While at the same time, I have some dispensational books that are just wonderfull referance materials. Enjoy them very much.

 

[Luke2427]

Literal means to take the bible in its plain and intended meaning, accounting for the differing genres in it!

As the Apsotles looked to the physical second coming of jesus back to the earth, not in a 'spiritual sense!"

And you ought to consider that MOST apocalyptic language is NOT literal.

I love John MacArthur, but I find it UNTENABLE that solid Calvinist brethren buy into this TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE (and brand new might I add) doctrine of dispensationalism.

 

[thomas15]

And you ought to consider that MOST apocalyptic language is NOT literal.

I love John MacArthur, but I find it UNTENABLE that solid Calvinist brethren buy into this TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE (and brand new might I add) doctrine of dispensationalism.

So what you are insisting on is this: since some prophecy is in apocalypic language, the dispies are incorrect in their interpretation and the reformed covenant a-mil crowd is correct. And since the Bible contains some apocalypic language, Israel in the OT means the Church in the NT. Not trying to put words in you mouth but only trying to get a full understanding of the thinking that goes on here.

 

[thomas15]

Heehee :thumbsup::thumbsup:

And yet in places where prophecy is not in apocalyptic language, such as Matt ch 24-25, there are those who throw out all sense of the normal usage of the words in English and insist that Jesus returned in AD 70 simply because the Roman army sacked Jerusalem.

 

[thomas15]

Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, (Tit 1:2 NKJ)[/COLOR]....

A promise of eternal life, redemption and forgiveness does not prove that Jehovah made a covenant of grace or a covenant of redemption. Who are the parties of the covenant(s)? What are the terms? How do you break the covenant? How do you keep the covenant?

If as you suggest Jehovah made a covenant of grace before time began, how could there be a covenant of works that came afterwards? Such an arrangement would have a historical flow like this:

1. covenant of grace, followed by a...
2. covenant of works, then reverting back to a...
3. covenant of grace.

 

[MorseOp]

The Covenant of Works existed before the Covenant of Redemption.

What exactly is the Covenant of Works?

Genesis 3:22 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "--

The only tree that Adam was forbidden to eat from was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life He was able to eat from. We are never told why Adam did not eat from the tree of life prior to eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Covenant of Works operates under the assumption that mankind would have maintained its intimate relationship with God as long as sin did not enter into the picture. Eventually Adam would have eaten from the tree of life and lived in perpetual obedience to God. We know from the garden narrative that this did not happen. Adam ate of the fruit from the forbidden tree and sin ensued; both to Adam and his posterity. As an act of grace God prevented Adam from eating from the tree of life; thus sparing Adam an eternity of sin. Adam truly was the first moral free agent in that he had no sin nature when he was created, although he had the ability to sin (posse pecare).

The Covenant of Works reminds us of God's standard.

1 Peter 1:16 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."

With the Covenant of Works broken God inaugurated the Covenant of Redemption. Starting with the first shedding of blood (Genesis 3:21), God initiated this covenant (also called the Covenant of Grace) that would culminate with the coming of Jesus and His sacrificial death on the cross. The C.o.R. is seen in the establishment of the ceremonial law and the sacrificial system. Over and over again God's standard of holiness continually pointed to man's sinfulness and condemnation. The sacrificial system provided a means of receiving grace and forgiveness, albeit temporary. We see God's grace towards the Gentiles (Rahab and Nineveh et. al). When Christ came everything that the C.o.R. pointed towards became fulfilled. Eventually it will reach its apex at the beginning of the eternal state. At that time everyone who is saved will have the right to eat of the tree of life (Revelation 22:14). What Adam lost will be completely restored.