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

Yes....shocking as this statement is...according to DHK the gospel has nothing to do with God's Covenant. Let's examine how he comes to this conclusion.
I will post the whole post so you can see how he arrives at this place.

What do you think? What does scripture declare on this?:type:

 

Here is the exchange;
DHK
Moderator



Originally Posted by Iconoclast ;
I said Calvin.....the man Calvin.....not calvinism.

The difference would be some speak about Calvin the man, what he did ,or did not do.

Calvinism ; would be-here from wikipedia

Calvinism is a misleading term because the religious tradition it denotes is and has always been diverse, with a wide range of influences rather than a single founder. The movement was first called "Calvinism" by Lutherans who opposed it, and many within the tradition would prefer to use the word "Reformed" rather than "Calvinist."[3][4] Since the Arminian controversy, the Reformed (as a branch of Protestantism distinguished from Lutheranism) are divided into Arminians and Calvinists, however it is now rare to call Arminians Reformed, as many see these two schools of thought as opposed, making the terms Calvinist and Reformed synonymous.[5][6]

That is the difference DHK.....it is teaching, doctrine.....{ but we have bigger fish to fry} so lets get to it!

Iconoclast said;
The good news is about God's covenant salvation made known to the Church. Calvinism is the accurate teaching of that salvation....that is good news to me my friend!

Yes...I do. I might not use severe theological terms, however i would relate as much of God's truth as was needful.

Yes they did as that is the biblical teaching...but let us go to scripture to see what it says.

Two good verses for sure.If you went up to a stranger and told him this he would say.....

Believe what? Who is Jesus Christ? Why should I believe Him? Saved from what? What does it mean to call upon the Name of the Lord?

When Paul teaches these verses they are the conclusion of lengthy teaching unfolding many portions of the OT , scriptures. You claim to be a teacher of the bible, say that I believe heresy and so on...then you post this instead?

No....this verse does not say those words.Do you know why? Perhaps if we use our bible instead of your anti-cal rhetoric we can see it...let's look-
In romans 8 ;29-30 we have the golden chain.....you know....all those calvinistic words that the calvinists like to use
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

foreknown, called, elect...al those calvinistic terms...leading Paul to praise God for His Love found IN CHRIST.

There is more DHK....as we look to chapter 9, what do we find????

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;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So Paul in leading up to the verses you offer...not only explains the Covenant and promises......he includes all who God has purposed to graft in.

right here DHK.....
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

So gentiles are called by the same promises made to Abraham....quoting Hosea to establish the Covenant promises..

Your misguided idea is not working to well is it DHK. I said in the other thread when you boasted that;

I said it was defective for this very reason....I said this-
If it has nothing to do with God's covenant love and mercy that is Calvinisms root teaching,it is greatly defective. Thankfully God is sovereign and can use many means to have his word save sinner.

Your next astounding claim-

Again...do we need to go to Calvins institutes for an answer....no.....Let's see what we find in
beginning of the gospel of Luke;
Lk1
54 He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.
Oh wait...he did not say covenant ............yet....lets look further-
7 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,

74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

The angels said this was good news...you say teaching of the Covenant has nothing to do with the good news...
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

You say;

I said to you-
salvation is written about in all 66 books...not just the 4 spiritual laws tract, or the romans road.

What gave me the idea was your simplistic idea using two isolated verses and saying the Covenant has nothing to do with the gospel, and then to say that anyone who would frame out the gospel as the scripture does.....is teaching heresy...is the real absurdity.

Okay..that is a good start....especially since the bible and Paul you quote tells us this;
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.


How could the scripture say.....preached before the GOSPEL TO ABRAHAM?
according to you and your definition.....Abraham did not hear Romans 10:9, or Acts 16:31...yet he heard the gospel.....In the Covenant promise

So before you charge Calvinists, Both Reformed Baptists,and our padeo brothers with heresy.....you might want to expand your view of what does it mean for a sinner to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is absurd...is this statement.....maybe you can retract it, before anyone reads it...I will not tell.

see part 2

 

part 2
If that is your root teaching then it is a false teaching.
You wrote this, not me.you are not a novice..after 28000 posts...you rail against calvinist teaching and then post this defective fragmented teaching.

having a defect or flaw; faulty; imperfect:imperfect in form or function : faulty

.

This is what Calvinism teaches DHK. Only Calvinism teaches it from everywhere in the Bible. it includes the Covenant of promise. I am glad that you teach people this much as there is enough saving truth here to be used of God to save a soul. Every Calvinistic sermon teaches and ties these truths into all the scripture.

Sometimes I get chided for coming across a bit rough. But those who make that claim here on BB....are free to claim we are into heresy, rude and arrogant for posting links that show error being posted in here daily. then you make your claims being quite obnoxious at times...but it turns out the Calvinist is somehow arrogant for offering verses or sermons.


1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
Quote:
To believe what millions have believed and do believe is not heresy.as you and your friend Dave Hunt say...that is insulting...but I do not get hung up on weak arguments from silence.
You think you have won the day...so what do you offer;

.

Another out of context mis-use of a verse...twisting or as peter says wresting the scripture.....putting it on a torture rack...out of context completely.
god is very willing to send multitudes into the second death at the white throne.

yes,,,,,,because the Covenant promise mentioned in Lk 1...goes world wide...not to Israel only. Every believing sinners ..sins have been propitiated.

.

and Calvinists believe and teach them rightly.

.

The only ALL Jesus died for was the ALL the Father Gave to Him...

A false philosophical term...free moral agents make choices...their will is bound by their nature.

.

That Choice belongs to God alone..

No...God does not lie.

.
No...man is not given ...a choice.....God has commanded all men everywhere to repent. they are responsible

Calvinism was in scripture before Calvin laid eyes on it. You still do not get it...It is the scriptural teaching whatever name you call it. Herald offered that good quote from Spurgeon.


Quote the whole thing:

.

it is there even if you do not see it yet....it is right there

.

No..it is not His omniscience here.....It is the eternal Covenant of Redemption that Jesus declares in Jn 6.

?

Here is your red herring

Nice try......No man Can come to me...unless the Father who sent me.....draw Him...that is the context.....he knew because it was the Fathers will..
he knew because he was part of the Covenant of Redemption.

8 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
As you look at the passage you see irrresistable grace...not the false philosophical idea of free will....which denies the fall.

You miss the passage completely.

Many baptists understand and believe in the Covenant theology taught in scripture. Because we do does not mean we are not baptists.that is another wrong idea that someone taught you.

 

Sn

This is a tragic view of biblical teaching offered by God given teachers.you are welcome to your view.I do not share it. You claim to get all your teaching directly from the Holy Spirit??? You do not listen to your pastors sermons?
if you do...why do you...?

When scripture speaks of teaching one another....how does that happen?

it seems as if when you post...you use your own words quite often....this is okay?
but if i quote a godly puritan who wrote and taught about scripture, that is not valid?

It seems to me that you are painting yourself into a corner with your line of reasoning.

can you show any thread where i quote Calvin....SN???

 

Covenant theology is revealed by God. I know what it is.If you read the response to DHK you will see some verses on it.

If you offer good links..as time permits..I will read them. To not seek out truth in every way possible is a sinful neglect of being a good steward of the gospel.

 

saturneptune;1


Here is a great example, you could have used the above words, left out the phrases "it is a false teaching" and gotten a lot further in a discussion, in a civil manner. That phrase served no purpose other than to demean. Why did you bring out the fact that DHK has over 28,000 posts, other than to inflame. It adds nothing to the discussion, other than your purpose of belittling a fellow Christian. You are saying, how long does it take for you to agree with me? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it is a personal attack.

Instead, why not say "I believe there is a more complete picture of the situation, instead of another copy and paste of a definition?

The focus of all this is Jesus Christ, not a showcase of how much you have learned.[/QUOTE]

The bolded phrase...

that phrase was offered by DHK ..SN

So..are you going to offer that advice to Him.I had to split the post because it was too long. he said it not me.

The reason is...he is not a novice trying to learn and question in a healthy way..he says he teaches the bible,and yet attacks calvinists as heresy.

That inflames things a bit...don't you think? i know that you want to be critical of me SN...but try and be accurate when you read.:thumbs:

You did not voice this concern when Pinoybaptist called luke 2427 a male anatomical part. I am not here to"belittle fellow christians", but I will refute the gainsayers.

again....I point him and anyone else to scripture. I post what i have found to be right. Do you post what you post because you believe it to be wrong?

You and others attempt to ascribe evil motives to me. I do not do that to you, unless you show it by a direct attack.

What DHK posted is astounding to me. should i praise him for His open attack? which part of DHK's post was meant to be helpful to Calvinists.

he believing calvinism is heresy thinks he offers help by speaking badly about any calvinist anywhere.....look where it leads him.

those things i copy and paste ...i cannot say better than what they have said...so why should I offer less than the best?

Can you say better what chapter 1 of the 1689 conf.states about scripture, offering better verses or a more concise definition than they offer?
then please do so. If not, explain again why they should not be used?