Featured The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant

I do not believe God is the author of evil. I believe Jeremiah, inspired by the Holy Spirit, not in a creed, stated that is so. Also, I do not believe one person on this board believes the Gospel is a works salvation. If DHK and Winman said these statements, perhaps I missed the quotes, but do not recall the posts.

In the case of DHK, he was a member of the RCC. I was never one, so do not presume to come from an origin of knowing what it is like. I do know he is now a Baptist, and his posts are solidly Biblical. He brings a perspective that most others do not have, and he certainly deserves having his posts considered as true. One can read and learn their own error. Since, as I recall, you also come from the same origin, that you two would be in harmony more of the time than you are. Here are two individuals from the same background, in the same Baptist faith today, who are constantly at odds with each other. Why is that? DHK has never said he has no use for creeds and confessions. He has said his own preaching and study comes from the Bible as his source document. Many times he has said these other types of writings are used as supplements. So, with those facts, how do you explain that you have extremely long posts opposing what he has to say, not on just one subject, but numerous? Why is it that there is no natural antagonism between him and me, yet there is between you two?

As a side story, DHK once gave me an infraction, perhaps over a year ago, for calling another poster an idiot who said mental illness is a made up condition that shows a laziness for not understanding the Gospel. This is one of my many problems, not using the proper use of words, but the fact is, since I work in a company that helps these folks, it set me off. However, I thought his judgement was fair, and do not feel an anger every time I encounter him. I have learned much from him.

In the case of Winman, we have debated free will and sovereignty often. Sometimes the debate got heated, but the fact is, he considers me at least willing to listen to him. Today, we have learned to exchange posts in a Christ like manner, and there is no sign or feeling of that natural anger. Why is that?

Tom Butler, who you brought up earlier, and I are perhaps two of four or five that embrace God's sovereignty in our local church. Within the church every Sunday, there is no feeling of anger between us and the rest of the congregation. In fact, the fellowship is quite enjoyable. We have one point of disagreement, open vs closed communion, and we do not make a constant issue of it. Our relationship is what it should be between each other, and what it should be in relation to supporting the pastor, and maintaining unity in our local body. Why is that?

When I am out of line with my wording, such as preachinginjesus, an apology is given. I was wrong on that one. That is over and it will not happen again. Why is that? When was the last time you apologized to anyone?

As far as your comment about the chess board, this is another example of arrogance. How could you possibly know what I will see in the future? The bottom line is, two Christians might have a temporary burst of disagreement, but it does not go on long term. Why does that exist between you and me, or more importantly, you and many other posters? Why is that?

 

This is an outright lie, I believe that no man can be saved except by trusting Jesus Christ as their Savior. I believe we are saved by faith and not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

Here are the points you listed, and will make a brief comment on each, but this is a vast array of doctrine. Many I disagree with, but really, this is not the point. The point is, the manner in which you responded to each. Did the responses edify, or were they addressed as you did the last post to me?


1]The gospel has nothing to do with God's covenant. One does not have to be a covenant theologian or be in that camp in order to be saved. I believe in covenant theology, and therefore believe the Noah, Abrahamic, Mosaic covenants had one purpose, as a preperation through the Lord's purposes, to prepare for the coming of Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and Ressurection, which is our only hope and the reason for our hope. That is how I link covenant and salvation. However, if one does not see it the way I do, it is not for me to say they cannot be saved because of that one point, or being a dispy. Are you saying dispys cannot be saved?

2]God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance That comes from 2 Peter 3:9. Again, a very complex subject that is a long discourse, but His original intent that none should perish, but sin entered. There is a penalty for sin apart from Jesus Christ.

3]Christ died for all, that all would be saved. After sin entered, I believe this from Romans 1 answers this. "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." I doubt DHK ever said they he believes all will be saved. Romans 3:10, for example, says otherwise.

4]All have a free will, All have a free will within the parameters of being born in sin. We can only choose within a sinful state without a touch from the Lord.

5]that is the ability to make the choice to be saved or not. He chose us, we did not choose Him. A quote from Jesus Himself.

6]God is calling out a nation in the NT, specifically in this age of grace. He is not doing it through a covenant. See number 1

7]The time of covenants has finished. See number 1

8]It will only resume once again when Jesus comes again and restores Israel to its rightful place. Then he fulfill the covenant that he made long ago with Israel. That has nothing to do with us. Not sure what this means in the limited context

9]The Bible teaches that one is saved by grace through faith not by covenants. We are saved by grace through faith. Covenants were used of the Lord to prepare for the coming of Jesus Christ. The two are really not the same issue. God could have used any method He wanted, but He chose covenants throughout the OT. In God's plan, covenants and the work of Jesus Christ are all in unity. I do not understand how you can debate what is a fact, that covenants pointed the way to Christ. To debate what would have happened if there were no covenants or apart from covenants, seems to be a waste of time.

10]You are teaching a false gospel. There is no covenant in the gospel. I do not agree with that statement. Covenants and the Gospel are linked, but covenants are not the Gospel

11] John MacArthur. He is one of those who teaches the "Lordship salvation (heresy)" and denies the Biblical truth of carnal Christians. That is an endless debate with no winners. My view is that we are indwelt with the Holy Spirit, but still have a sin nature. If we sin as Christians, the HS gets our attention and back on track. On this issue, I do not agree with either of you. A Christian can sin, but does not live in it as he did before he was saved. We are new creatures in Jesus Christ. The time a Christian sins is short if saved. The Lord corrects his children. Then again, I do not believe any Christian leads a sinless life. The debate you two had was two extremes and neither fits Scripture.

 

Again, here is another edifying post:
"do you read his posts at all"
"perhaps you stay silent and compromise"
"you can get along with Benny Hinn and smile"
"you side with those who call it heresy"
"do you know anything is error, and do you ever say so"

On and on and on. Yes, we probably theologically agree on much, but the spirit in you, your nature of answering others, your disrespect for other posters, over several years, even those you supposedly agree with, is out of control.

I would go so far as to say, you have done the doctrines of grace much harm by the nature of your responses. I have read every post that I have commented on and for you to suggest otherwise is uncalled for.

The bottom line is that whether agreeing or not with another poster, there should never been a perpetual state of antagonism, which seems to be the status quo in your case, regardless of theological side.

 

oh....dang

 

A Calvinist's words can be dripping in honey, and it wouldn't change the animosity of the noncalvinist. But you're wrong about icon. His posts are straightforward and honest appraisals of noncalvinist dogma.

 

I am pretty sure you will get over it and sleep well tonight.

 

A rare moment in BB history. Thomas15 is at a total loss for words! Wait, No, actually one word comes to mind. The word is..........is......is.....TOUCHE'!!! Ostrich of the Year! That is so good! And no meaningful interaction, AMAZING OBSERVATIONS ICON!!!!

Ok, classes begin tonight so I have to limit my involvement, no make that I have to limit the input of absolute truth from the keyboard of the Iconster for the next 16 weeks. But if I find any excess room in my brain I will stop in to bask in the glow of the free authoritative wisedom.

 

If I were post mil I could let all the hope kick in but since I'm pre-mil it will probably be touch and go.

 

..........................

 

Agree, I could not have said it better myself.

 

I don't know why but I'm thinking about a quote that is attributed to Abe Lincoln. It goes like this: During a conversation among his staff, someone who was not a fan of General Grant called Grant a "drunkard". Lincoln is reported to have responded "find out what brand of whiskey Grant drinks. I think I'll send a case to all of my Generals. This man fights."

Basically Aaron, the strightforward and honest appraisals thing is up for debate.

 

From my observation point....the only ones that would debate Icons commentary are those who dislike his directness. Considering the fact that Tony defends what he considers truth & takes all the insults ...... is exemplary.

I will add that each time Ive approached him with concerns that he he has responded with honesty & grace.

 

Be careful saying "......................" borders on determism, and might get you ousted......

 

A "type" does not constitute a church. If you want to stick to your allegorical method of interpretation go and debate HisWitness, a relatively new poster. Using the same methods you use, he doesn't believe Satan exists any longer. In fact he believes that God is Satan--a heresy if not blasphemy. His method of interpretation, the same as yours began with a heretic, Origen. You can make the Bible say anything you want to. The Church Age started at Pentecost, and that is final. It is a well known and accepted theological fact.

An assembly is not necessarily a church. So, an assembly was called out in the wilderness? So what? That doesn't make it a church.
Will you agree here too?

Acts 19:39 But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly.
40 For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse.
41 And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
--This assembly took place in a theater. It was the mayor that dismissed it.
Was it a church, Icon?

What part did you play in the covenant. Covenants are typically two way, like two people shaking hands in agreement. Which part did you play? Did you die on the cross, or shed blood? How much did you share in the sufferings of Christ in order to enter into this covenant--baptism? You have a works salvation do you? My salvation is via the grace of God accepted by faith based on the substitutionary work of Christ. It is a relationship with Christ not a covenant. Covenants imply works; religions.

Why did you stop reading there? Read further:
1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
--All this was an example, just an example for us, Icon. We need to learn from their errors; learn from their history, not to sin as they sinned.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
--Again Paul emphasizes the same thing. What they did in sinning was an example to us not to follow in their footsteps. It has nothing to do with covenants.

The laws pertaining to Israel were nailed by Christ on the cross. They do not apply to us. We do not keep the Sabbath as they were required. We do not wear all one type of clothing, Our diet is not the same as theirs. We do not keep the offerings and sacrifices as they did. The law has been done away with; nailed to the cross.
If you don't like the term "grace," as I said, then this time is the Church Age, which started at the Day of Pentecost and will continue till Jesus Comes again "for his bride." God works in different ways during different periods of history. Check Heb.1:1,2.

Yes, that one way is "justification by faith," not covenants.

Then you shouldn't argue with it.

Genesis 3:15 is known as the "protoevangelium," or the first Messianic promise. It is a promise not a covenant. You are confused.

That is what you need to do. If you can't tell that Gen.3:15 is a promise and not a covenant you are in need of some serious Bible study.

Those chapters don't speak of salvation. I didn't enter a covenant when I got saved; I entered into a relationship with Jesus Christ.
John 6--the promise of eternal life.
The Book of Hebrews was written to Hebrew Christians, and therefore directed to Hebrews.
Hebrews 2--speaks of reconciliation.
Hebrews 10--speaks of a future time; a time when promises will be fulfilled in the future--the Millennial Kingdom--at least part of the chapter does. It is a long chapter and deals with many subjects.

God made covenants with Israel, not with the nation that He is now calling out through a relationship with Him via the Holy Spirit.

This is the Church Age. It will not end until Jesus comes again.

I apply the Scriptures and take them to a logical conclusion. The Bible is a harmonious book without contradiction. When I see a supposed contradiction I study and see why it is there and then resolve the problem through further study. Your system has inherent problems in it. It is not consistent. You cannot "rightly understand it." You cannot take it to its logical conclusion and still remain a Baptist, as you just admitted. You would have to become a Presbyterian or a Paedobaptist. It is a system that is full of inconsistencies.

 

Not quite. Baptismal regeneration is just the next logical step. If infant baptism is necessary then why not baptismal regeneration. Read the history of it. That is why it was introduced. It was the next logical step of being part of the covenant in covenant theology. Born a Jew, always a Jew, from the day they were officially circumcised. Now, in your circles, baptism takes the place of circumcision. Just attach regeneration with it. As the RCC teaches: new birth = baptism; born again of "water".

The EOC still baptizes by immersion and are also paedobaptists. They speak Greek. Baptidzo means immersion. The very language forces them to immerse.

And that is what covenant theology does.

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?
You cannot know the heart, and neither can I; and yet you and MacArthur claim to know the heart of all men. You claim to be able to divide all men into spiritual and unsaved, whereas many of those "unsaved" may indeed be carnal. Who are you to take the place of God? You are very arrogant in this!! Paul calls them carnal, and indeed they were. Paul calls the one who committed adultery or incest in 1Cor.5, a brother, a saved individual. That is why they could discipline him out of the church. You don't discipline someone who is unsaved. You just tell him to leave. This carnal fornicating Christian was obviously carnal in his lifestyle and needed to repent. The Bible indicates that later he did repent and came back to the church.
Now who believes the heresy?

You post Presbyterian theology.

I, by my own free will, trusted Christ as my Savior. God, by his omniscience knew what decision I would make. That did not hinder my free will to make that decision. I did not enter into a covenant. I entered into the family of God.

That is a false Calvinistic belief that cannot be proven or backed up by Scripture.
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."
Show me one verse in the Bible where God gives faith to the unsaved.
He doesn't. That goes against all Scripture.
Faith is: 1) a spiritual gift, 2) a gift of the Spirit.
God does not give spiritual gifts to the unsaved. It is absurd even to think of such things, yet Calvinists have been brainwashed by their mentors to accept this idea without thinking it through. God does not give faith to unbelievers. They must put their faith in Christ.

That is right. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
If thou believest, then thou mayest.
Over and over again the Bible speaks of "your faith," not God's faith. It is not God's faith that saved me. He did not take a giant spiritual hypodermic needle and inject faith in me. It was I that believed in God, on the basis of the evidence presented to me, i.e., the gospel.

Please do not refer to the gospel as strange ideas.

First, that is a prayer, a benediction at that.
Second it is speaking of an everlasting covenant,
Third the context. Next verse:
Hebrews 13:22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.
The letter was written to the Hebrews which you failed to mentioned. All covenants were made with the Hebrews.

There is no covenant here.

Both Lordship salvation and the denial of carnal Christians I can refute quite well. But to those who will not listen, they remain ignorant, don't they.

Did you just admit that you don't want to look at or read 1Cor.3:3. That is really sad.

This is your arrogance. You continue to accuse me of being in error. When you point a finger at me you have three more pointing back at you. Think well about that.

I didn't mis-use it as you say. Only according to you I mis-used it. But that is just your opinion. You state opinion as fact. That is no way to debate. It is not debate either to berate your opponent over the head and keep telling them that they need to "consider those who offer correction of your error." That is the most condescending thing that I keep hearing from you. Perhaps the shoe fits better on the other foot.

Perhaps if you are the truck driver you are headed for a steep cliff and you are blinded.

I have plenty of Greek and Hebrew teachers. You would have me to look at the J.W. Greek teachers too. That is a good comparison as far as I am concerned.

 

DHK good post. You have summed up the whole ball of wax as far as I'm concerned. I do want to touch on one small point....

Over the last year or so I have been if nothing else consistant and relentless in my criticism of Covenant Theology. No one has put up even a baby fight to defend this view Biblically. This is the core of the problem and you have nailed it, the Calvinist mentors have brainwashed their novices into believing that there are Biblical covenants of Grace, Works and Redemption.

If there are such Covenants, the Bible does not speak of them. A good question to ask, if someone insists that there are such covenants and the BIble is silent on them then where do they get their knowledge of them?

 

It is a failure to distinguish the great difference between Israel and the church.
The RCC basically believes in a type of Replacement Theology.
This has been carried over by some covenant theologians as well.
I believe it is a heresy.
Israel is still here: alive and well. She is blinded for a season, but not obliterated; neither replaced. Covenant theology leads to that ultimate end.