Featured Arrogance or Contending for the Truth?

The following was posted earlier {post #60} in response to DHK's assertion that all the Covenants were with Israel. I am sure it is an oversight that he has not responded so I present it again. His assertion that all the Covenants were with Israel is not a trivial claim and must be refuted!

 

That is a pathetic accusation DHK. The mark of defeat. You previously claimed that all Covenants were with Israel. I showed you how foolish that comment was and you have an itch you can't scratch!

I am not aligned in any way with the Westminster Confession but I prefer it over Darby's cobbled up pre-trib-dispensationalism 24/7!

You were referring to departure from Baptist History. I simply show you that Rapture Ready Baptists are the fruit of John Nelson Darby.

 

You are barking up the wrong tree. I haven't mentioned the Tribulation, the Rapture, "pre-trib" position, Darby, etc. You are showing your hatred of a doctrine that no one is talking about. You have all this hatred so pent up within yourself that you feel you have to spew it all over the board even though no one is talking about it. Pitiful!
I have only been discussing the "Premillennial Position," and that is all.
Are you having trouble focusing?

Secondly you can "show me" whatever you want. I will demonstrate the truth to you through Scripture:
Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
--The covenants were given to Israel as Paul states right here.
The scripture is clear.

 

Are you posting all of this just to convince yourself? Pity!
I keep telling you that I haven't mentioned a pre-trib position in this thread. You are off topic and just taking up space by your needless and meaningless posting. I have only mentioned the Pre-mill position in this thread. Just think; all that work for naught!

 

The topic is "Arrogance or Contending for the Truth?"

I am "Contending for the Truth!" You post a false assertion that all the Covenants were with Israel. I show from Scripture that your assertion is false. That is "Contending for the Truth!" Yet you continue to ignore the truth!

You also made the following false assertion:

I reject that assertion and claim that Darby's pre-trib-dispensationalism is a man-made concoction. I am simply "Contending for the Truth!" You then make the following Assertion:

I show from historical Baptist Confessions that Baptist's believed in a general resurrection and judgment contrary to what you teach, contrary to what pre-trib-dispensationalism teaches. Baptists did not die for the pre-trib-dispensationalism concocted by John Nelson Darby. I am simply "Contending for the Truth!" That is what this thread is all about.

 

I showed you from Scripture that only two covenants were specifically given to Israel. The first was the giving of the Law, both had to do with conditional promises. If you want to deny Scripture that is your problem, one that you routinely practice. However, I am "Contending for the Truth!"

You posted the following:

It is not abundantly clear as I show once again from Scripture {Post #60}!

So you see DHK that I am "Contending for the Truth!" That is what this thread is about. It is also about "Arrogance" which you display in rejecting the Word of God presented above.

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

 

What you have demonstrated is that you don't have a clue what the OP is about:
OP:

 

I said you were arrogant and you are. From the OP it is easily seen that you fit the definition of Arrogant from Webster's Dictionary and the remarks by Reformed:

You certainly are not "contending for the truth" because I showed from the Word of God that your statement that all the Covenants were with Israel was false. At least three of the Covenants were instituted before Israel existed. Of course you would argue that the Word of God is meaningless unless someone gives it meaning.

From post #88 the General Baptist Discussions; Divine Illumination/ Divine Enablement Thread:

On the same thread as the above quote you said:

 

You are entitled to your opinion. Everyone is.

First, I simply quoted the Bible. Your argument is with God, not me:

Second, this thread is not about "contending for the truth," though it has those words in the title. It is about attitude. Thus the doctrine you post and defend is irrelevant to the OP.

That thread has nothing to do with this one.

 

Pathetic DHK! You stated the following in your post #57:

I showed you from the Word of God that at least three Covenants were instituted before Israel existed.

You come back with the following:

And the Scripture I posted from the Word of God shows that two of the six Covenants I mentioned were with Israel. But that was not sufficient for you. You still deny that your original statement is False but it is and the Word of God proves that it is false. You read your own interpretation into the passage from Romans in an attempt to support your pre-trib-dispensationalism.

Darby and Scofield did not "rightly divide the "Word of Truth" they Splintered the Word of truth to concoct the false doctrine of pre-trib-dispensationalism, making the Word of God of "none effect"! {Galatians 3:17}

 

I am not arguing with you about your Covenant Theology. I have given you Scripture and I leave it there. You can't explain it. That is your problem, not mine.

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
--The Scripture doesn't change regardless of your opinions and accusations.

I have not mentioned the pre-trib position in this thread or in any thread for some time. So why are you harping on it? You are barking up the wrong tree.
I have only mentioned pre-millennialism which the ECF believed in, and that (historically) does away with your position. The Early Church Fathers did not believe in Amillennialism. They did not hold anywhere near to what you believe, which really puts your position in doubt.

The line of reasoning here is this. Since Darby and Scofield are recent the doctrine must be wrong. That is your reasoning. So let's go with your reasoning here. I'll even use some of your authorities.

According to your logic premillennialism is the correct doctrine because it is the oldest, and Amillennialism is wrong.

http://www.bibleprophecyblog.com/2014/11/what-is-amillennialism.html#
The article is by Thomas Ice, one of your favorites.
According to your logic; your reasoning; Premillennialism is right because it is oldest and both amil and post mil are simply reactionary man-made theologies to pre-mil, which is the actual truth.

Either way I have not mentioned pre-trib, so you need not mention it either.
It is clear, however, your position is wrong--using your method of determining right from wrong.

 

Just as many "classical reformed" would see the Baptist view on Baptism as not being in the scriptures....

Just as there are the "new calvinists", who would see Charasmatics as being part of the reformed flock!

 

Pre Mil was the de facto position of the ECF, as they received that from the Apostles themselves, and while they did not view it in a strict Dispy sense, they also were not holding to things such as A mil, nor preterists, as they indeed saw that God would bring his kingdom to earth when Jesus returned to rule over all the earth!

 

I assume by ECF you mean Early Church Fathers. One truth is certain; they did not believe that the Church for which Jesus Christ died was a "parenthesis" an interruption in God's program for Israel. That is an invention of John Nelson Darby, popularized in this country by the Scofield Reference Bible.

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

 

On the first one, not sure how one could see any other view from the Bible besides baptism after salvation by immersion that symbolizes the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ in a newness of life. Sprinkling is a left over from the RCC. The covenant relationship, between parent and child, if it exists, does not save a child until it has the understanding of morality. Only Jesus Christ saves.

Charismatics and all the denominations they encompass are cults. They preach a works gospel. They put their faith in gifts of the Holy Spirit that have long ceased instead of Jesus Christ.

 

I agree with you, but since you are new here I'll warn you not to be surprised that there are a few of those type of folks hangin around here. They believe they have a private prayer language and can raise the dead.

 

I was raised up in the Assemblies of God, and would tend to see there being seperate camps in that Movement though...

Some would be Holiness pentacostals, such as the AOG, who wjhile having an erronous view regarding the gifts of the Spirit operating today, they are still to be considered within real Christianity, but do hold to fridge distinctive doctrines...

Those in the Word of faith/health and wealth/5 fold ministries indeed are teaching another Gospel!

 

The truth is DHK that you posted on this thread the following statement:

That statement is false and I have proven from The Word of God that the first three Covenants were instituted before Israel even existed.

You do have a problem DHK. I have proven that you are wrong but you are not man enough to admit it.

 

I am not wrong. It is your theology vs. the inspired word of God as written through the Apostle Paul:

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

I didn't say that. Paul did.
Take your argument up with Paul or with God who inspired him.
The covenants were given to Israel.

 

If the Israelites were given the Law in the wooden way you're stating it, then why are we commanded to keep it, too?