The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant

[DHK]

The same with Endtimes or DoG, or any area of theology.
In my recent discussion with DHK...he does not want to consider what Mattew Henry offers in His Commentary?

He is free to not read it, but I do not think that is the correct way to approach truth.

I have studied the endtimes thoroughly. I have taught it in college. Truthfully, there are very few books available that are well thought out on this subject.

What has Matthew Henry to offer on this subject? Confusion!!
First, MH lived in the 17th century and no doubt just accepted what was the common eschatological view of the day without questioning it. Was he pre-trib, pre-mil.? Not a chance! Thus why would I use him in reference to anything with eschatology? It is like asking "Why would I use Ellen G. White as a reference to study the Sabbath, when I know I don't agree?" Though the latter be a heretic and the former not, the illustration is still appropriate.

Secondly, early on in my Christian life I did use Matthew Henry. That was fine. It is a devotional commentary. I am more mature now. I don't need devotional commentaries. I look for exegetical and expositional commentaries: those that go to the original languages; those that go not only verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, emphasizing particular words. I don't need devotions. Neither do I need his allegories. Out of all the major commentaries on my shelf, if I had one to give away (or didn't need) it would be Matthew Henry.
Other Presbyterians, or Calvinistic theologians are much better than he is:
Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, and Albert Barnes, to name a couple. I like the way Barnes attacks the RCC in his writings on the end times, but of course I still don't believe on his general outlook of what is going to happen.
One must learn to critique; sift out the good from the bad.
You don't think I read these people.
Why do you think I reject their commentaries? :tonofbricks:

 

[Iconoclast]

I have studied the endtimes thoroughly. I have taught it in college. Truthfully, there are very few books available that are well thought out on this subject.

What has Matthew Henry to offer on this subject? Confusion!!
First, MH lived in the 17th century and no doubt just accepted what was the common eschatological view of the day without questioning it. Was he pre-trib, pre-mil.? Not a chance! Thus why would I use him in reference to anything with eschatology? It is like asking "Why would I use Ellen G. White as a reference to study the Sabbath, when I know I don't agree?" Though the latter be a heretic and the former not, the illustration is still appropriate.

Secondly, early on in my Christian life I did use Matthew Henry. That was fine. It is a devotional commentary. I am more mature now. I don't need devotional commentaries. I look for exegetical and expositional commentaries: those that go to the original languages; those that go not only verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, emphasizing particular words. I don't need devotions. Neither do I need his allegories. Out of all the major commentaries on my shelf, if I had one to give away (or didn't need) it would be Matthew Henry.
Other Presbyterians, or Calvinistic theologians are much better than he is:
Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, and Albert Barnes, to name a couple. I like the way Barnes attacks the RCC in his writings on the end times, but of course I still don't believe on his general outlook of what is going to happen.
One must learn to critique; sift out the good from the bad.
You don't think I read these people.
Why do you think I reject their commentaries? :tonofbricks:

Thanks for clarifying this issue.He is devotional but has substance also.
Yes others go deeper, I do not think that was His intention.
Even if you reject as you say His commentary, and perhaps others like him...you remove yourself from many commentaries by this course of action. That is how you go about it.At least the clarification helps .:thumbs:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I have been essentially a "lurker" and have spent hours enjoying this thread and learning from the back-and-forth between you two (Icon DHK)

While I am not particluarly prepared (or really interested) in debating the premises of "Covenant Theology"...I do not adhere to it: I respect the attempt at reasoned debate you have offered Icon, but I do have a question/critique:

Repeatedly, you have made the statement "This is covenant language"...or something quite akin to that, however it is always while quoting a passage which does not (at least directly) mention a covenant or even use the word....

I am not trying to falsify your arguments for your theology here, but it does suggest to me the possibility that you are coming to the Scriptures with Covenant Theology as a pre-supposition and that you are seeing something there which may not be there...namely, whatever this thing is which you call "Covenant Language"....Sometimes, a point of view may even be true, but the verses used to support it are not germaine or they are irrelevant or the may even contradict the position held....Hearing this phrase:

"That is Covenant Language"... causes me to worry about one of two possibilities, either you are believing you see in the Scriptures something which supports your position when it isn't there because it "sounds" like that sort of Theology to you, or, you have merely elected a poor debate tactic: It's simply not a convincing line to use really. To then say (as you did a few times) "don't you see it?" or "why can't you see it?" or something like that, then makes me look for the word "Covenant" and indeed not "see" the word....and then think to myself.....NOPE.... I don't see it either....why do you, since...... it isn't there.

Do you see how this is, well, subsequently hard to swallow? IF then, YOU "see" something we don't, then, the conclusion we will make is that you are "seeing" something not there, and "reading into it" something that is merely assummed.

I am not trying to disprove your Theology or defeat your arguments...consider it a critique and, honestly, a genuine concern in that, I would say that I personally believe (due to our disagreements) that you often do read into Scriptures unwarranted assumptions that aren't there....YOU are GROUNDED in your faith, and that is a good thing, but, you may be a little TOO SECURELY GROUNDED!!! :tongue3: If you take my meaning:

Anyway, carry on, and I have enjoyed the discourse you guys!!
....I am a benefitting "lurker".

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation
I have been essentially a "lurker" and have spent hours enjoying this thread and learning from the back-and-forth between you two (Icon DHK)

While I am not particluarly prepared (or really interested) in debating the premises of "Covenant Theology"...I do not adhere to it: I respect the attempt at reasoned debate you have offered Icon, but I do have a question/critique:

Repeatedly, you have made the statement "This is covenant language"...or something quite akin to that, however it is always while quoting a passage which does not (at least directly) mention a covenant or even use the word....

Hos this is a worthwhile question and request for clarification:thumbsup:

What do i mean by that statement?Especially when some of the language does not have the word...covenant.

here is an example from 2 sam7

8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel:

9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.

10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime,


12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

17 According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

God makes "an arrangement" with David,and His Son after Him.
The word Covenant is not used here:thumbsup:and yet in psalm 89 we read:

3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,

4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.

So in psalm 89 we see God speaks of it as a Covenant: here in psa89
27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

Hos....verse 28 links this Covenant..with God's mercy


The word for mercy is loyal love....alright.....so now we can go back and examine 2sam 7....and look for scriptural explanation as to.....

What is the essence of God's Covenant with His chosen?
1] it comes from God

2] it has to do with mercy

3] I will be his father, and he shall be my son...is part of the Covenant

4]If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him

5]But my mercy shall not depart away from him.

In psalm 89 we see this:
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

here again,God uses the "covenant language" of ........When hesed is used to express God's interaction with man, this Hebrew word expresses God's faithfulness to His covenant and the blessings and mercy He ...
lovingkindness =loyal love...
.God's faithfulness

it is spoken of =my Covenant.

God speaks of the Covenant as The word of Promise....

he speaks of an OATH.....
here he says he Swore by His holiness...

All of this is Covenant language....

In the Ot....circumcision was the "sign of the Covenant"

25 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.


Salvation or lack of salvation is defined here in Jer 9 in relation to the covenant.....having the sign ,and the reality of it.

Physical Israel had the sign, but not the reality...except for the elect remnant.....
9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

10 Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

Paul quotes this in romans 10....

I am not trying to falsify your arguments for your theology here, but it does suggest to me the possibility that you are coming to the Scriptures with Covenant Theology as a pre-supposition and that you are seeing something there which may not be there...namely, whatever this thing is which you call "Covenant Language".

At first I was unaware of most of it. Once i began to learn I had to re-study, re-evaluate what I had been taught.....

For example...I use this all the time.and I keep it in Mind..Do you remenber the message given to Zacharias in Lk 1;

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;

70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:

71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;

72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;

73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

here is the language again in vs 72 -73
1]mercy

2]promised

3]The fathers

4]Holy Covenant

5]the oath

6]which he swore Once you see it...it is hard not to have presuppositions, or at the very least...be on the "lookout" for this language...so for example in 2 cor 6.....for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The essence of the Covenant is I WILL BE THEIR GOD,AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE......covenant language:thumbsup:

Are there other elements...sure..but all flow from this.DHK mentioned that gentiles are in a "relationship" to God...but he says ...not a covenant.

I see in scripture that God having a special relationship with some people over others is the result of His eternal electing love....It is because of a Covenant relationship......The Father Gives all the elect to The Son, The Son dies for them...the blood of the everlasting Covenant.

others say it and explain it much clearer that this quick outline...

the verses in Hosea I posted to DHK...with the two children whose names meant...not having obtained mercy, and having obtained mercy...

Non covenant persons being grafted into the Covenant....ie, having obtained mercy:waveyaul and peter speak of the gentiles this way...

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

covenant language...see it?it opens up the passage....Dispensationalism seeks to fragment the passages ..into different gospels, different saints,
dispys do not think that Christians are in the new Covenant right now.

Here is ezk 11
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.


...Sometimes, a point of view may even be true, but the verses used to support it are not germaine or they are irrelevant or the may even contradict the position held....Hearing this phrase:

"That is Covenant Language"... causes me to worry about one of two possibilities, either you are believing you see in the Scriptures something which supports your position when it isn't there because it "sounds" like that sort of Theology to you, or, you have merely elected a poor debate tactic: It's simply not a convincing line to use really. To then say (as you did a few times) "don't you see it?" or "why can't you see it?" or something like that, then makes me look for the word "Covenant" and indeed not "see" the word....and then think to myself.....NOPE.... I don't see it either....why do you, since...... it isn't there.

Do you see how this is, well, subsequently hard to swallow? IF then, YOU "see" something we don't, then, the conclusion we will make is that you are "seeing" something not there, and "reading into it" something that is merely assummed.

.consider it a critique and, honestly, a genuine concern in that, I would say that I personally believe (due to our disagreements) that you often do read into Scriptures unwarranted assumptions that aren't there...

.

Hos..it could be that I being older have had more time to arrive here before you do,and maybe this will spur you on to attain a better understanding of these things and instruct others:

Anyway, carry on, and I have enjoyed the discourse you guys!!
....I am a benefitting "lurker".

Thanks for the questions and thoughts.

 

[percho]

HeirofSalvation
I have been essentially a "lurker" and have spent hours enjoying this thread and learning from the back-and-forth between you two (Icon DHK)

While I am not particluarly prepared (or really interested) in debating the premises of "Covenant Theology"...I do not adhere to it: I respect the attempt at reasoned debate you have offered Icon, but I do have a question/critique:



Hos this is a worthwhile question and request for clarification:thumbsup:

What do i mean by that statement?Especially when some of the language does not have the word...covenant.

here is an example from 2 sam7


God makes "an arrangement" with David,and His Son after Him.
The word Covenant is not used here:thumbsup:and yet in psalm 89 we read:


So in psalm 89 we see God speaks of it as a Covenant: here in psa89
27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

Hos....verse 28 links this Covenant..with God's mercy


The word for mercy is loyal love....alright.....so now we can go back and examine 2sam 7....and look for scriptural explanation as to.....

What is the essence of God's Covenant with His chosen?
1] it comes from God

2] it has to do with mercy

3] I will be his father, and he shall be my son...is part of the Covenant

4]If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him

5]But my mercy shall not depart away from him.

In psalm 89 we see this:
33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

here again,God uses the "covenant language" of ........When hesed is used to express God's interaction with man, this Hebrew word expresses God's faithfulness to His covenant and the blessings and mercy He ...
lovingkindness =loyal love...
.God's faithfulness

it is spoken of =my Covenant.

God speaks of the Covenant as The word of Promise....

he speaks of an OATH.....
here he says he Swore by His holiness...

All of this is Covenant language....

In the Ot....circumcision was the "sign of the Covenant"

25 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.


Salvation or lack of salvation is defined here in Jer 9 in relation to the covenant.....having the sign ,and the reality of it.

Physical Israel had the sign, but not the reality...except for the elect remnant.....
9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

10 Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.

Paul quotes this in romans 10....





At first I was unaware of most of it. Once i began to learn I had to re-study, re-evaluate what I had been taught.....

For example...I use this all the time.and I keep it in Mind..Do you remenber the message given to Zacharias in Lk 1;


here is the language again in vs 72 -73
1]mercy

2]promised

3]The fathers

4]Holy Covenant

5]the oath

6]which he swore Once you see it...it is hard not to have presuppositions, or at the very least...be on the "lookout" for this language...so for example in 2 cor 6.....for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The essence of the Covenant is I WILL BE THEIR GOD,AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE......covenant language:thumbsup:

Are there other elements...sure..but all flow from this.DHK mentioned that gentiles are in a "relationship" to God...but he says ...not a covenant.

I see in scripture that God having a special relationship with some people over others is the result of His eternal electing love....It is because of a Covenant relationship......The Father Gives all the elect to The Son, The Son dies for them...the blood of the everlasting Covenant.

others say it and explain it much clearer that this quick outline...

the verses in Hosea I posted to DHK...with the two children whose names meant...not having obtained mercy, and having obtained mercy...

Non covenant persons being grafted into the Covenant....ie, having obtained mercy:waveyaul and peter speak of the gentiles this way...

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

covenant language...see it?it opens up the passage....Dispensationalism seeks to fragment the passages ..into different gospels, different saints,
dispys do not think that Christians are in the new Covenant right now.

Here is ezk 11
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

20 That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.


...Sometimes, a point of view may even be true, but the verses used to support it are not germaine or they are irrelevant or the may even contradict the position held....Hearing this phrase:

"That is Covenant Language"... causes me to worry about one of two possibilities, either you are believing you see in the Scriptures something which supports your position when it isn't there because it "sounds" like that sort of Theology to you, or, you have merely elected a poor debate tactic: It's simply not a convincing line to use really. To then say (as you did a few times) "don't you see it?" or "why can't you see it?" or something like that, then makes me look for the word "Covenant" and indeed not "see" the word....and then think to myself.....NOPE.... I don't see it either....why do you, since...... it isn't there.

Do you see how this is, well, subsequently hard to swallow? IF then, YOU "see" something we don't, then, the conclusion we will make is that you are "seeing" something not there, and "reading into it" something that is merely assummed.

.

Hos..it could be that I being older have had more time to arrive here before you do,and maybe this will spur you on to attain a better understanding of these things and instruct others:





Thanks for the questions and thoughts.

Great post.

Now take this verse Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Isn't this turning in the same context as 1 Kings 18:37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou [art] the LORD God, and [that] thou hast turned their heart back again.

That is they turn toward God because of God turning them.

My question is based upon passages such as:

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, Hosea 1:6 I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. in contrast to 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, because of the covenant with Abraham/David concerning Christ the seed.
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure. Jer. 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

is, that this remnant; Romans 11:15 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace: is from; Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: are from the Jews of the house of Judah and from those scattered from the house of Israel scattered among the Gentiles.

Doesn't Acts 15:16,17 have the implication that during a specified period the balance of mankind that is of the children of Israel not of the remnant and the heathen will seek the remnant and the Lord in whose name they were called?

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: 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. Acts 15:16,17 KJV ie The Kingdom of God

If the answer to that is yes, then are not the elect, elected for a purpose that requires salvation eternal life rather than them being elected for going to Heaven and the rest being elected for going to Hell. Is this not the misunderstanding of scripture of which J Calvin had.

Elected for a purpose that required salvation that came about by, the Grace of God the Father toward the faith of Jesus his Son, not from anything we think, believe or do.

See threads; "Is this the answer to the debate," and or "Connect the dots."

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother Icon,

Gill is accused of being a hyper-Calvinist because of his supralapsarian view. There is no credible evidence to suggest he was a hyper-Calvinist. Making Gill out to be a hyper-Calvinist is like throwing out the accusation of "racist" at someone who is not a racist. Once the charge is made it is hard to dispel the stigma.

There is also no commonly accepted definition of what a hyper-Calvinist is. The charge is often made against those who hold to supralapsarianism. According to Donald McKim's "Dictionary of Theological Terms", supralapsarianism is:

Wouldn't Hyper calvinism be more akin to a person holding to the Elect will be saved by god regardless if they hear the Gospel or even placed faith in jesus?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for clarifying this issue.He is devotional but has substance also.
Yes others go deeper, I do not think that was His intention.
Even if you reject as you say His commentary, and perhaps others like him...you remove yourself from many commentaries by this course of action. That is how you go about it.At least the clarification helps .:thumbs:

I have read someone reformed like a leon morris on Romans, GE ladd on revelation, and found their work very good, even while disagreeing with their views on isreal/Church as per paul, so think we can read and get good stuff from cals/non cals/arms /reformed/dispy etc...

God has blessed us with good expositors/teachers throughout all camps, just have to read with discernment!

 

[Iconoclast]

Great post.

Now take this verse Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Isn't this turning in the same context as 1 Kings 18:37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou [art] the LORD God, and [that] thou hast turned their heart back again.

That is they turn toward God because of God turning them.

My question is based upon passages such as:

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, Hosea 1:6 I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. in contrast to 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, because of the covenant with Abraham/David concerning Christ the seed.
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure. Jer. 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

is, that this remnant; Romans 11:15 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace:

Yes exactly right...You are on track....I was thinking of how i had not posted this passage yesterday, but should have,and you have completed it for me!:thumbs:


is from; Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: are from the Jews of the house of Judah and from those scattered from the house of Israel scattered among the Gentiles.

Doesn't Acts 15:16,17 have the implication that during a specified period the balance of mankind that is of the children of Israel not of the remnant and the heathen will seek the remnant and the Lord in whose name they were called?

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: 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. Acts 15:16,17 KJV ie The Kingdom of God

If the answer to that is yes, then are not the elect, elected for a purpose that requires salvation eternal life rather than them being elected for going to Heaven and the rest being elected for going to Hell.

Election and calling are always unto salvation. You do not see people ...'elected unto Hell".

There are four strong verses maybe more that Supralapsarians will show to demonstrate reprobation.....infralapsarians speak of preterition...God elects the sheep and looks past the others who go on to the white throne judgement.

Is this not the misunderstanding of scripture of which J Calvin had.

Calvin was one man.he wrote a great deal of sound theology.He also was not infallible. Most of todays calvinists have not read much Calvin...so...in either case we need to look to scripture.

Any trusted guide needs to be examined as the bereans did.

Elected for a purpose that required salvation that came about by, the Grace of God the Father toward the faith of Jesus his Son, not from anything we think, believe or do.

Yes exactly right...elected unto holiness and service of the Lord...all the days of our life.
See threads; "Is this the answer to the debate," and or "Connect the dots."

Good post thanks for helping:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

I have read someone reformed like a leon morris on Romans, GE ladd on revelation, and found their work very good, even while disagreeing with their views on isreal/Church as per paul, so think we can read and get good stuff from cals/non cals/arms /reformed/dispy etc...

God has blessed us with good expositors/teachers throughout all camps, just have to read with discernment!

We should be able to read men with different views and profit from them as much as they keep Jesus first ..i read some Ladd a few months ago in reference to His understanding of the Kingdom.:wavey:

 

[saturneptune]

We should be able to read men with different views and profit from them as much as they keep Jesus first ..i read some Ladd a few months ago in reference to His understanding of the Kingdom.:wavey:

Good summary. For example, many on this board believe that many of the teachings of Calvin follow Scrpiture, but no one would take up for his theories on baptism. D. James Kennedy, a noted television Presbyterian pastor, makes a lot of good points in his books, but again, we all have enough discernment to not embrace his baptism again.

 

[Iconoclast]

Good summary. For example, many on this board believe that many of the teachings of Calvin follow Scrpiture, but no one would take up for his theories on baptism. D. James Kennedy, a noted television Presbyterian pastor, makes a lot of good points in his books, but again, we all have enough discernment to not embrace his baptism again.

I am very reluctant to be critical of the reformers,as they pulled many out of Roman darkness. They did what they could when they could,many paying with their lives.
Too many things happened that i do not understand..Catholics and protestants killing anabaptists, and each killing each other. I was not there to know exactly how it all happened.
Some Catholic historians demonize the anabaptists AND SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS....waldenses, donatists, catharis, and others.Some did hold odd doctrines, some were okay, but with others bearing false witness against them.

Luther wrote some good things...but i am not a Lutheran. he pulled away from rome...but not quite all the way...he was one man. I have no idea of what the conditions were like then. So I read about it, but just to get a rough idea so as to not repeat some of the errors.

As a baptist....I accept some of these condemned groups....like Michael Wrenn used to support .....but obviously not all that they taught. They did what they could.....but frankly the reformers needed to correct much of their theology also , as well as the false papal ideas.

 

[DHK]

I am very reluctant to be critical of the reformers,as they pulled many out of Roman darkness. They did what they could when they could,many paying with their lives.

That's true, but because of their RCC background, when they came out they brought much of that Catholic baggage with them. They were Reformers because they tried to "reform" the RCC from within, but failed. They still believed in a form of transubstantiation. The Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation, for example, for all intent and purposes does not differ greatly from transubstantiation. They remained paedobaptists. Calvin set up a state-church in Geneva, much like the RCC had in Rome. There were great similarities as they pulled away from Rome.

Too many things happened that i do not understand..Catholics and protestants killing anabaptists, and each killing each other. I was not there to know exactly how it all happened.

This happened mostly under political rule, and remember that in Geneva Calvin was the head of his own church-state. In England which ever King or Queen was in power they persecuted the other religions that were not of their persuasion. A good example is "Bloody Mary," Queen of Tudor," a zealous Catholic. Pope Innocent III ordered a Crusade against the Albigenses at the same time that he went after the Muslims. But the Albigenses were peace-loving believers who kept to themselves. They believed in the Great Commission (one sin), and baptized adults (another sin). For those two great sins, they were persecuted.

Some Catholic historians demonize the anabaptists AND SOME OF THE OTHER GROUPS....waldenses, donatists, catharis, and others.Some did hold odd doctrines, some were okay, but with others bearing false witness against them.

Most of these groups held diverse beliefs just like Baptists of today do, and just like the early churches of Paul's day did. There is no doubt a Baptist church today that would accept the Corinthian Church of Paul's day, with all their abuse of the gift of tongues, and their error in other doctrines into their fellowship. Some even denied the resurrection. Also read the differences in the churches that Jesus wrote to in Revelation two and three. Could you honestly fellowship with all seven of those churches? Look carefully at the sins some of them tolerated.

OTOH, the Catholics delighted in taking some churches perhaps like a "Corinthian church" and demonizing the entire movement as being that way. But it was not so.

Luther wrote some good things...but i am not a Lutheran. he pulled away from rome...but not quite all the way...he was one man. I have no idea of what the conditions were like then. So I read about it, but just to get a rough idea so as to not repeat some of the errors.

True enough. He held on to some of the Catholic errors.

As a baptist....I accept some of these condemned groups....like Michael Wrenn used to support .....but obviously not all that they taught. They did what they could.....but frankly the reformers needed to correct much of their theology also , as well as the false papal ideas.

I can only accept them as evangelical if they are. But if they preach error, as the Charismatics do, then as a church we can not have united fellowship with them; for "how can two walk together except they be agreed." I agree with your statement about the reformers completely.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's true, but because of their RCC background, when they came out they brought much of that Catholic baggage with them. They were Reformers because they tried to "reform" the RCC from within, but failed. They still believed in a form of transubstantiation. The Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation, for example, for all intent and purposes does not differ greatly from transubstantiation. They remained paedobaptists. Calvin set up a state-church in Geneva, much like the RCC had in Rome. There were great similarities as they pulled away from Rome.

This happened mostly under political rule, and remember that in Geneva Calvin was the head of his own church-state. In England which ever King or Queen was in power they persecuted the other religions that were not of their persuasion. A good example is "Bloody Mary," Queen of Tudor," a zealous Catholic. Pope Innocent III ordered a Crusade against the Albigenses at the same time that he went after the Muslims. But the Albigenses were peace-loving believers who kept to themselves. They believed in the Great Commission (one sin), and baptized adults (another sin). For those two great sins, they were persecuted.

Most of these groups held diverse beliefs just like Baptists of today do, and just like the early churches of Paul's day did. There is no doubt a Baptist church today that would accept the Corinthian Church of Paul's day, with all their abuse of the gift of tongues, and their error in other doctrines into their fellowship. Some even denied the resurrection. Also read the differences in the churches that Jesus wrote to in Revelation two and three. Could you honestly fellowship with all seven of those churches? Look carefully at the sins some of them tolerated.

OTOH, the Catholics delighted in taking some churches perhaps like a "Corinthian church" and demonizing the entire movement as being that way. But it was not so.

True enough. He held on to some of the Catholic errors.

I can only accept them as evangelical if they are. But if they preach error, as the Charismatics do, then as a church we can not have united fellowship with them; for "how can two walk together except they be agreed." I agree with your statement about the reformers completely.

we can respect and appreciate what calvin/Luther etc did in the sense of 'rediscovering" the truth of saved by grace and faith ALONE, we also need to understand that some of what each taught was NOT biblcal, but that is same for ALL of us here, as none of us are modern day Apostles!

 

[DHK]

we can respect and appreciate what calvin/Luther etc did in the sense of 'rediscovering" the truth of saved by grace and faith ALONE, we also need to understand that some of what each taught was NOT biblcal, but that is same for ALL of us here, as none of us are modern day Apostles!

The Reformation was a decisive point in history in its attack on the corruption of the RCC. Luther went to Rome and was astonished at what the priests did in the name of Christ in selling indulgences to get out of purgatory, and other such things. The church was corrupt. It was Luther that came to a knowledge of truth.

Note well: The truth of salvation was never rediscovered!
It was never lost.
God has always had his elect in every age since the apostles outside of the RCC. The RCC didn't preserve the truth of God. Bible believing Christians did--Christians that have lived and preserved the truth of God throughout all ages. Catholics have tried to destroy the Bible; destroy true Christianity; wipe it out; etc. They have the blood of martyrs on their hands. But all throughout history God has preserved those that are his. They have been called by different names. They have been slandered, mocked, scorned, beaten, persecuted, demeaned, but never stamped out entirely. The Bible, and the gospel have never been completely destroyed. And they never will. That is a promise of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Reformation was a decisive point in history in its attack on the corruption of the RCC. Luther went to Rome and was astonished at what the priests did in the name of Christ in selling indulgences to get out of purgatory, and other such things. The church was corrupt. It was Luther that came to a knowledge of truth.

Note well: The truth of salvation was never rediscovered!
It was never lost.
God has always had his elect in every age since the apostles outside of the RCC. The RCC didn't preserve the truth of God. Bible believing Christians did--Christians that have lived and preserved the truth of God throughout all ages. Catholics have tried to destroy the Bible; destroy true Christianity; wipe it out; etc. They have the blood of martyrs on their hands. But all throughout history God has preserved those that are his. They have been called by different names. They have been slandered, mocked, scorned, beaten, persecuted, demeaned, but never stamped out entirely. The Bible, and the gospel have never been completely destroyed. And they never will. That is a promise of God.

I meant that the true Gospel was not being taught by the RCC , nor by many others, but you are true in the afct that God ALWAYS preserves a faithful remant, see Elijah and Baal!

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

That's true, but because of their RCC background, when they came out they brought much of that Catholic baggage with them. They were Reformers because they tried to "reform" the RCC from within, but failed

.

I am glad we can agree on much here.:thumbsup: Church history from the Apostles to the reformation I find to be troubling. I have not read or been taught as much on it as I would like to be. I have only read enough to have somewhat of a patchwork understanding.....enough to give a general kind of answers to the unsaved I get to speak with.

They still believed in a form of transubstantiation. The Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation, for example, for all intent and purposes does not differ greatly from transubstantiation. They remained paedobaptists. Calvin set up a state-church in Geneva, much like the RCC had in Rome. There were great similarities as they pulled away from Rome.

I believe it had become necessary as Rome became completely perverted.
It is just I do not like being dependent on who wrote the history book.

This happened mostly under political rule, and remember that in Geneva Calvin was the head of his own church-state

.

I have seen some support him and some be critical. i was not there.God has already dealt with Him and the others.

In England which ever King or Queen was in power they persecuted the other religions that were not of their persuasion. A good example is "Bloody Mary," Queen of Tudor," a zealous Catholic. Pope Innocent III ordered a Crusade against the Albigenses at the same time that he went after the Muslims. But the Albigenses were peace-loving believers who kept to themselves. They believed in the Great Commission (one sin), and baptized adults (another sin). For those two great sins, they were persecuted.

This I have also heard of and read a little bit on. i think I focus more on doctrinal and biblical theology as the realm I function in, truckstops, warehouses, etc....people have basic sin on their mind,and do not care as much about some of these historic things.

Most of these groups held diverse beliefs just like Baptists of today do, and just like the early churches of Paul's day did. There is no doubt a Baptist church today that would accept the Corinthian Church of Paul's day, with all their abuse of the gift of tongues, and their error in other doctrines into their fellowship. Some even denied the resurrection.

Agreed sadly this is so. We need to hold the line against these errors:thumbsup:

Also read the differences in the churches that Jesus wrote to in Revelation two and three. Could you honestly fellowship with all seven of those churches? Look carefully at the sins some of them tolerated.

DHk......that is why I push for a confession of faith and cathechism as I do. I believe it helps as a hedge against these errors.I know the RC church has them...but they are more based on tradition rather than solid bible teaching.

OTOH, the Catholics delighted in taking some churches perhaps like a "Corinthian church" and demonizing the entire movement as being that way. But it was not so.

They accused the group known as the Bugameli....of lewd behaviour in order to make them targets.

I can only accept them as evangelical if they are. But if they preach error, as the Charismatics do, then as a church we can not have united fellowship with them; for "how can two walk together except they be agreed.

" I agree with your statement about the reformers completely.

yes this has harmed many churches already...it is like a plague on the land.