I know where his website is, Icon. I can go there myself if I so desire. Why not post your own material; your own thoughts, instead.here is more from Pastor Culvers series for those who like to study;
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I know where his website is, Icon. I can go there myself if I so desire. Why not post your own material; your own thoughts, instead.here is more from Pastor Culvers series for those who like to study;
I know what kind of church he pastors. That is enough for me to stay away from his works.DHK
Pastor Culver is not a follower of Ellen G.White, or the RC.Church.Judging by his notes and over 70 messages I have listened to,he is an able minister of the new Covenant.You would be hard pressed to answer him.You perhaps know that so you ridicule him and pass Judgement. A wise man would seek correction and teaching if available.
You have just demonstrated in two quick posts how you post material of others instead of trying to come up with some original thinking.From observing your posts over time you "circle the wagons" against anyone who does not follow your fundamentalist stylings.You are free to do that DHK...as I am free to observe and comment upon it.
But we know that is not the case don't we. At least you know that if you read my posts.Having a nice library is good and commendable:thumbs:You must be able to interact with the material in a biblical fashion before you can be said to"have them". If you cannot accurately quote and interact with them...in reality you have nothing that will profit you or anyone else.
I hope you are not confused on this.We do not deny what Paul said. We just listen to teachers who open up the passage and show which words were used...and then can come to a biblical understanding.You refused to listen or read those sources....or you did listen , knew you were wrong, but could not own up to it.That is between you and God. You say people here deny the scriptures on this, but i assured you it was your teaching that was in clear error...but you refused to check it out.That is what happened.
From teaching. I was clear in my last post but you didn't read it.Okay..let's see what kind of "education" you have-
So lets examine this.You are A NEWBORN BABE,in a church you believe had truth.....and yet the truth is ...as a new born babe...you had no real idea what was true,and what might have been or still is error.
Without any background how did you a new christian know truth from error...
I didn't come into contact with a fundamental church until two and a half years after I was saved. That is where I was baptized. That is where I began to learn about the importance of the local church. Before that time I had associated myself with my work or interdenominationalism. I was a member of that church for only about six months when the Lord led me to go to Bible College.because the fundamentalist pastor yelled and screamed..."well my bible says"...or he was quick to warn you about the evil of facial hair, or the need to separate from every other church on the planet, or of course the old standby...KJO?
Legalism is defined in Acts 15 and spoken of in the letter to the Galatians.legalism is what I hear in most fundamentalist messages.I have heard it often on the radio,and unfortunately too many times in visiting random churches.
Sometimes people in a church make a personal decision to live a holy life. If that decision involves dressing more modestly, listening to more conservative music, abstaining from alcohol, then who are you to judge your brother? If you are offended by those that are trying to be more like Jesus, trying to live a holy life, then you are the weaker brother.It will sound like they have a concern to obey 2 cor6:14-7:1...but it is the same sermon and moralizing over and over. replacing God's standard and law...with the fundy list of do and don't do this or that.
Why?This idea is raised often.It is misguided and wrong.If truth is the goal..it should not matter who offered it or wrote it as all truth is God's truth.
If you want to compete we could play chess or horseshoes, or bocce ball.
i am not so prideful that I have to say...here are my thoughts on it.When there are more gifted persons the less gifted person should shut up and listen to the wiser more mature brother.
Otherwise what are you looking to do? catch me using a wrong word, or twist what I say so you can seem to be"winning".This is a prideful idea.
This seems perverse to me.If you need to"Win' and come out on top...you can do many things.....play one on one basketball with blind persons, or race people in wheelchairs.
If the goal to come to truth is being pursued and someone offers a helpful link worthy of consideration...you should say, thanks for posting this link.I will look at it and respond.
If you disagree ...show why.
I know where his website is, Icon. I can go there myself if I so desire.
[/QUOTE]DHK
I know where his website is, Icon. I can go there myself if I so desire. Why not post your own material; your own thoughts, instead.
.I know what kind of church he pastors. That is enough for me to stay away from his works
Why not post your own material; your own thoughts, instead.
.You have just demonstrated in two quick posts how you post material of others instead of trying to come up with some original thinking
.
I hope you are not confused on this.
I have always believed that it was possible to be a carnal Christian, for that is what 1Cor.3:1-3 teaches: "You are yet carnal..." They were carnal and had to be fed with milk. There is such a thing as a carnal Christian. I hope we understand each other here.
From teaching. I was clear in my last post but you didn't read it.
You have to always include this kind of statement...it appears I don't know. Well I do and here in your next statement you try to disguise it but your inner fundy/legal obedience just has to express it self-Most people do not know what legalism is. It appears you don't know either.
Sometimes people in a church make a personal decision to live a holy life. If that decision involves dressing more modestly, listening to more conservative music, abstaining from alcohol,
I have never heard a IFB message that does not work this in , no matter what the text......yeah they "make a personal choice, I bet,lol...after getting brow beaten about hair length,and skirt length , and all the fundy do's and don;ts
then who are you to judge your brother? If you are offended by those that are trying to be more like Jesus, trying to live a holy life, then you are the weaker brother
Nice try to deflect, but this is not cutting it.
What are your thoughts on this subject.Why?
This is a debate forum. I came to debate those who are members here. Kit Culvert has his own website. If I wanted to communicate with him I can go to his website and get in contact with him. If I wanted to read his material I can go there and read it.
I am posting here so I can debate you; not Culvert.
I don't care what Culvert's thoughts are. He is probably out to lunch any way. The debate is between you and the other posters here. If Culvert joins the board then he can speak for himself. You don't have to be a spokesperson for him.
really....then you should man up and show where and how that would be the case....he would eat your lunch in a debate,lolI don't care what Culvert's thoughts are. He is probably out to lunch any way. The debate is between you and the other posters here. If Culvert joins the board then he can speak for himself. You don't have to be a spokesperson for him.
__________________
Constant cat & dog fighting....when you going to get together and provide an edifying forum that all could learn from?
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29)
Almost no one learns that way.You can learn from the discussion of the op.
You can learn by looking up the verses listed along with the links, cut and pasted into the thread.
You can learn by seeing who opposes the verses and why.
Almost no one learns that way.
Almost no one is going to take a long list of references and look them up.
Take just a few references, post the actual Scripture and explain your take on it. Then people will respond.
.Almost no one is going to respond to a long lengthy copy and paste job like your two posts from Culver
You say they enjoy them. They don't.
.The average person does not like a long lengthy post. They skip right over them and go to the next post. That is why no one has responded to those two posts. They don't bother to read them
Give short posts. Make them succinct and to the point, preferably in your own words. Just get to the point and say what you have to say. Then more people will respond.
OK, let's try and wade through some of it.here is more from Pastor Culvers series for those who like to study;
1. I have no idea what the text is.Israel’s repentance would prepare them to receive their Messiah, but it also represented
the reuniting of their hearts with their fathers. The meaning becomes clear when it is
recognized that the text is referring to the patriarchal fathers.
But there was no repentance. The kingdom was rejected.The people of Israel were
the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to whom the kingdom promise first came, and
the Israelite nation was the first realization of that promise. But the children had turned
away from their fathers by rejecting the patriarchs’ God and covenant. Now the time had
come for Yahweh to inaugurate the true kingdom promised to the fathers – the kingdom
they had seen by faith and longed for up until the day of their death (Hebrews 11:8-16).
Only by repentance – by rethinking what it means to be sons of the kingdom – would the
children of the patriarchs be reunited with them and prepared for Abraham’s Seed.
But that never happened did it? The kingdom was rejected. There is no Christ sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem. Not now, and not in the time of Christ. And all the nations of the earth do not now, nor did they then, come and worship him. His kingdom was never set up. They did not repent. They rejected both the King and the kingdom. There was no "inauguration."B. The Emergent Kingdom – The Coming of Immanuel
John was appointed by the Lord to prepare Israel for the coming of the long-awaited kingdom.
And at the heart of that kingdom was the profound reality of theophany: The uniform prophetic
message was that Yahweh Himself would inaugurate His kingdom in connection with His own
personal presence in the world.
The promise of Immanuel had nothing to do with a kingdom, but rather a Savior; something the nation of Israel was blind to.The promise of the kingdom was the promise of Immanuel –
“God with us” – and this theme is most prevalent in Isaiah’s prophecy (cf. 7:1-12:6, 19:18-25,
25:1-27:13, 32:1-20, 40:1-11, 42:1-9, 49:1-13, 59:1-20, etc.).
Unless more clarity is given the two are separate events. Remember that aside from the Book of Psalms, Isaiah is the longest book in the Bible--66 chapters, and full of prophesies. It prophesies the birth of Christ, the life of Christ, the death of Christ, the second coming of Christ, the Millennial Kingdom of Christ and His reign, as well as many other things.In particular, Isaiah associated the eschatological coming of Yahweh with the coming of His
Servant.
This type of allegorization is wrong.Importantly, this Servant is presented in unique terms as both the fulfillment of Israel
More error. There is no such thing as "the covenant Father" or "the covenant Son" in Scripture. The Bible speaks of our Heavenly Father, "the only begotten Son. Why the man-made language? Only to fit into a man-made system of theology, correct?(Isaiah 49:1ff) and the presence of Yahweh (cf. Isaiah 40:1-11 with 42:1-16; also Zechariah
2:10-11). In this way the text indirectly indicates that, in this one individual, there is some sort of
conjoining of the covenant Father and son; both parties to the covenant are represented in him.
1. There is no one on this board who denies that Christ is the God-Man.While Christians commonly recognize that the Isaianic “Servant of the Lord” represents Yahweh
Himself in His coming to inaugurate His kingdom, it is far less common for them to find in this
individual the fulfillment of Israel, Yahweh’s covenant son. The result is that they miss a crucial
aspect of Christ’s identity and role as the God-Man.
Perhaps a new doctrine?? "Messianism"?The doctrine of the Servant of Yahweh is evident elsewhere in the Old Testament –
particularly in relation to the promised Davidic seed (ref. Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25;
Zechariah 3:8; cf. also Haggai 2:20-23), but Isaiah’s treatment stands alone in its
magnitude and scope. His prophecy provides essential content for bringing together the
various aspects of Old Testament messianism.
Christ IS the Son of David.- The prophets revealed a Messiah who would be the Son of David and
Melchizedekian high priest.
The awesome day of the Lord has not yet come. Both Peter and Paul speak of that day as a future event. That was in the 60's A.D. He has not come yet. His kingdom is not yet set up. Paul died before 70 and John wrote well after 70 (ca. 98 A.D.). He will come as a thief in the night when man is least expecting it.This One would also be the tangible manifestation of
Yahweh in His coming to establish His kingdom in the earth. Moreover, both the
prophets and history itself indicated that this kingdom was to be the product of
Yahweh’s work of redemption in the great and awesome Day of the Lord (cf.
Isaiah 3:1-4:6; Joel 3:9-21; Zephaniah 1:1-18, 3:1-20; Malachi 4:5-6; etc.).
OK, let's try and wade through some of it.
1. I have no idea what the text is.
2. Israel never repented. In fact Israel rejected the kingdom when Christ offered it to them. Instead they took Christ, handed him over to Pilate, and demanded him to be crucified. The innocent God-man come in the flesh was taken by the Jews, after rejecting the kingdom and put to death. There was NO repentance.
But there was no repentance. The kingdom was rejected.
John 1:11 "He came to his own, and his own received him not."
For the most part, Jesus’ public self-interpretation was focused on the matter of fulfillment. That is, He explained Himself in terms of the Scriptures and their promise of a final, everlasting kingdom.
Jesus’ constant refrain was that Israel’s failure to know Him reflected its failure to understand the Scriptures; at every turn He answered His detractors and those who marveled at Him by directing them to what the Scriptures said and promised about the coming Messiah and the kingdom He would inaugurate (cf. Matthew 4:12-17, 5:17-20, 13:10-15, 21:1-46, 22:23-46;
Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:16-30; John 5:16-47, 7:14-42, 10:22-38, etc.).
But that never happened did it? The kingdom was rejected. There is no Christ sitting on the throne of David in Jerusalem.
they do come now to worship.....To the Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem;Not now, and not in the time of Christ. And all the nations of the earth do not now, nor did they then, come and worship him. His kingdom was never set up.
They did not repent. They rejected both the King and the kingdom. There was no "inauguration."
The promise of Immanuel had nothing to do with a kingdom, but rather a Savior; something the nation of Israel was blind to.
This type of allegorization is wrong.
The liberal Christ-denier presents Christ as an ideal, not a person.
What is the difference here?
More error. There is no such thing as "the covenant Father" or "the covenant Son" in Scripture. The Bible speaks of our Heavenly Father, "the only begotten Son. Why the man-made language? Only to fit into a man-made system of theology, correct?
There is no such thing as "the covenant Father" or "the covenant Son" in Scripture.
That is Good!1. There is no one on this board who denies that Christ is the God-Man.
2. The "Servant of the Lord" represents Christ.
.3. Christ WILL come to inaugurate his kingdom sometime in the future
You object to the terms Covenant Father, Covenant Son...yet you name a future kingdom The Millenial Kingdom...how is this different, and as you say...man made termsIt will be called the Millennial Kingdom and will last one thousand years. He will reign as king from Jerusalem.
The curse on this earth will then be lifted. It is not lifted now, is it?
What this all Israel means is almost a different discussion.4. Just before that time. "All Israel (the remnant) will be saved. "They aren't now, are they?
It was refused by some, but then given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof.Perhaps a new doctrine?? "Messianism"?
--Actually the word simply means "the coming of a Messiah. He came in the first century. The Jews rejected him, and then they crucified him.
--The kingdom was refused.
You do err.The promise of God with us fulfilled in The God -man who was Prophet, Priest, and King .The fact that we are described this way in REV 1 indicates otherwise;
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
This view of allegorizing scripture was never held by historic Christianity and is not now. The first person to allegorize Scripture was a heretic, Origen. Even the Catholic Church considered him a heretic. But the one to popularize the method was Augustine, one of the fathers of RCC. It is a heretical method of interpretation, one that the Christ-deniers use to do away with a literal Christ.The difference is this view is not held by Christ denying liberals.It is held by bible believing Christians. The scripture points to this very thing.
--That there is no "Covenant Father" and no "Covenant Son"??Now this is a majn reason why many do not see these ideas and needs to be thought out carefully. you say;
No, it does not prove allegorization as a method of interpretation. It proves that words have different meanings. I talk to Muslims this way when I explain the trinity to them. I use the example of either your nation or their nation. Who are the founding Fathers of America? If I look in a history book I will find that two of them are George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, correct? If they are your "fathers" then who are their sons? Obviously "father" has more than one meaning, as does "son." It is not always "physical" or "sexual," is it?Before i go into more detail...answer me a few questions...
Why does God refer to the whole nation as His Son, His firstborn Son????
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
God had Moses use this language.....Moses was not "allegorizing"...
If israel was spoken of as "MY SON"...that speaks of God saying He is Father , correct?
A son has a Father. God is known as a Covenant keeping God. So why would you say that the bible does not speak of these teachings.Why would you claim it is "man made ideas" rather than biblical teaching??? because it does not in any one verse use the
exact phrase....Covenant Son??....The language employed b y God is to be fulfilled in Jesus.
Explain why ex 4:22 means anything else....before I proceed beyond this point.
That is in answer to this statement of mine:I believe he has in Mt 21.
They are not man-made terms, but Biblical terms.You object to the terms Covenant Father, Covenant Son...yet you name a future kingdom The Millenial Kingdom...how is this different, and as you say...man made terms
The Millennial Kingdom is a kingdom of a thousand years by definition.is a period of time equal to one thousand years. It derives from the Latin mille, thousand, and annus, year. It is often, but not necessarily, related to a particular dating system.
No, it hasn't.the earth has not been physically renewed yet.
Paul dogmatically stated in Romans 11 that "all Israel shall be saved" speaking of the remnant. Has that happened? If so, when?What this all Israel means is almost a different discussion.
It was refused by the entire nation of Israel:It was refused by some, but then given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof.
Mt21:43
You do err.
,Revelation was written ca. 98 A.D.
Okay....Before that he came from the glories of heaven, and lived 33 years on this earth in anything but glory. He was born in a manger (not glory). He testified, "But the son of man hath no place to lay his head for rest (not glory). He sat down by the well, weary and thirsty and asked for water to drink (not glory). He went to the cross, was crucified as a common criminal, scourged until he was no more recognizable, and hung there until he died (not glory).
His glory was not a continuous "forever and ever." John was speaking from the point of his writing onward, which is after his ascension into heaven.
This view of allegorizing scripture was never held by historic Christianity and is not now. The first person to allegorize Scripture was a heretic, Origen. Even the Catholic Church considered him a heretic. But the one to popularize the method was Augustine, one of the fathers of RCC. It is a heretical method of interpretation, one that the Christ-deniers use to do away with a literal Christ.
This is standard premill response DHK....you want to reserve the right to take something as -non literal- and yet when a partial preterist does the same you cry foul!One of the basic principles of hermeneutics is to take the Bible literally unless the context indicates otherwise. This is the problem that the preterist has. He goes against basic hermeneutical principles.
--That there is no "Covenant Father" and no "Covenant Son"??
You don't even try to refute this, neither can you give any Scripture to defend yourself. You just assert your opinion as if it is fact! Give me one good reason why I should believe your opinion over what the Bible says?
--This is not language that demands "a covenant Father." There is no such thing. It is not in Scripture.
This is a false charge once again....Let me try again...It is man-made. You are making it up, or someone else is and you are just believing it without studying your Bible.
In his kingdom:
--All nations will come and worship him.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.
--These are just a few of the verses that describe the Kingdom. Nothing like this has happened, has it?
They are not man-made terms, but Biblical terms.
From Wikipedia:
The word "Millenia"
The Millennial Kingdom is a kingdom of a thousand years by definition.
he does rule the earth from heaven right nowRevelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
--It will be a thousand years when Satan will be bound, and Christ will rule the earth in perfect peace.
--A thousand years is a thousand years and cannot be allegorized away.
It is the Millennial Kingdom and is yet to come. What will take place are those things already described in Isaiah, and also in many other places in Scripture.
No, it hasn't.
But it will be renewed when Christ comes again.
It will be renewed at the time when Christ sets up His Kingdom.
It will be renewed during the time of the Millennial Kingdom; for His Kingdom has not yet come.
Paul dogmatically stated in Romans 11 that "all Israel shall be saved"
This is why i now reject dispensationalism. Physical Jews are a part of the Holy Nation being called as Jesus is the true Israel....God has one eternal people and they are found IN CHRIST .that is what is in dispute in this thread.1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
--He has not called out Israel. He is still calling out another nation.
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:
--All who believe are a chosen generation...a holy nation. This has nothing to do with Israel
Israel has been set aside for a season. But Israel still exists in this world today.
In his kingdom:I believe it has and will continue to happen until the last day.
In his kingdom:
--All nations will come and worship him.
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isaiah 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Ezekiel 11:17 Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.
--These are just a few of the verses that describe the Kingdom. Nothing like this has happened, has it?
That quote was your response to the above Scripture.
Now go verse by verse and explain the above Scripture as you "believe it has and will continue to happen until the last day."
Nothing in the passage says it is figurative. It is just your denial of Scripture. It means what it means. It is written that way to tell us that some day in the future the earth will return to its pre-Adamic state, that is, before Adam fell. When Christ comes he will lift the curse. It is a literal description of the earth without the curse.So when the peaceful characteristic of the kingdom is described in figurative language...you determine that this figurative language must be literally fulfilled in a different kingdom than the one Paul has been describing????
I didn't quote Paul. I quoted Isaiah.Paul says...quoting from isa.....In that day the gentiles seek him...that day has been since the apostolic days DHK....gentiles included in the promises.
To say this is quoted looking past paul's day is not supported anywhere but in the premill writings of men...
The covenants are given to Israel.Millenial Kingdom...still waiting for you to respond to the questions that i asked for about the terms and teaching of Covenant in the bible....take your time...i will wait!:thumbsup:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.