Davidic Covenant

What more needs to be said? I'm right behind you Carson with a BIG "amen". I think that was beautifully put! I appreciate your sharing the Testimony of Christ in the word keep posting I live for seeing these things!

In Him Kim

 

Star,

Two points:

1. YOu do not have to be smart to understand Scripture. However, bad interpretation is prevalent and hiding behind "you don't have to be smart" is illegitimate. Scripture is easy to understand. It is interpretations like many that you have suggested here that work against you. You have come up with stuff that no one picks up from the text. You have read all kinds of secret and deep meanings into the Scripture that simply cannot be gleaned from the words of the text.

2. To be loving and kind is not obedience to the truth. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. In obedience to teh truth one will be loving and kind to be sure but obedience to the truth is much more than that. It is adherence to the doctrines taught in Scripture. When one does not bring the doctrine taught in Scripture, we are to expose, rebuke, and if they fail to repent, to separate. There is no middle ground. We must speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). Yet is the truth that we must speak. We cannot omit the truth in pursuit of love.

 

The Davidic kingdom does not currently exist. It was the rule of a dynasty over an ethnic group of people in a specific land, all of which are parts of the Davidic covenant. If any one of those parts is missing, you do not have fulfillment. It seems illegitimate to redefine the kingdom because you don't like what the text says. It seems to me that this redefined kingdom is simply an attempt to shoehorn in an unnecessary present reign of Christ in the DAvidic kingdom. Adherence to the plain meaning of the text clearly leads to a future kingdom.

David's throne was more precisely his ruling authority. I agree with the rest. Yet you fail in your application. Since the kingdom does not exist, neither can the throne. There can be no authority in a non-existent kingdom; nor can we simply redefine the kingdom. We must use Scriptural terms and definitions.

Christ is currently ruling over the world to be sure. But that is not what Scripture describes as the Kingdom. Spend sometime in the OT and you will find that the kingdom prophesied is not what we are living in today. Your quotation of the Lord's Prayer is most interesting here because it undermines your position. You say that Christ brought the kingdom when he came. Yet when his disciples ask how he should pray he tells them to pray for the kingdom to come. Now if Christ brought the kingdom, why are his disciples still praying for it? The obvious inconsistency should be clear. You do not pray for what you already have. Christ's teaching is clear: The kingdom had not yet come. Therefore the disciples were to pray for it. Furthermore, the whole concept of "will" is interesting. It is God's will for all to worship him (John 4:24). Yet it is clear that on this earth not all do worship him. Therefore, the kingdom cannot be here as it is in heaven because this is not happening. Further refelction on the implications of the texts you cite most often will undermine the point that you are trying to make with it.

Thanks for your clarification but you still have no Scripture to support this view. This is pure conjecture and breaks down on a number of points.

It only grants viability to the papal office if you misunderstand it. Yet I wouldn't expect you to grant that. Furthermore, I cannot see any relavance the DAvidic imagery to this passage. Simply because two passages use similar words does not mean that they have a relationship. We need to be very careful in this regard. I think you have participated in some sloppily argumentation here by not clearly drawing the lines that connect these two. We must remember, "Similarity does not prove identity."

Here you have a problem though because the Davidic throne is not in heaven. It is the Father's throne that Jesus currently sits on. Again, you cannot simply redefine terms because you don't like the outcome or meaning of the ones Scripture uses. To understand that God fulfills his promises is not worldly. It sounds very pious to talk of a spiritual vision of eternity but in the end, it threatens the integrity of God by denying that the promises will be fulfilled as they were written.

So?? Neither of these verses prove your point. The kingdom of heaven was at hand; the problem is that the Jews didn't repent. So the kingdom was taken from that generation and postponed. And Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven ... and most certainly the church does ahve a role in the kingdom. Yet all that does not mean that the kingdom is now. Not even the disciples believed that they were living in teh kingdom. In ACts 1, they ask when the kingdom would be established. Apparently they, living under the direct teaching of Jesus, understood it like I did.

On this point, it is interesting how Catholics always appeal to the chronological proximity of the church fathers for their better understanding of early church teaching. Yet here, you and others want to deny that chronological proximity has any bearing. The disciples clearly understood that, in spite of Christ's teaching in his earthly ministry, the kingdom had not come. Therefore, whatever all these passages mean, they must be understood in light of the disciples understanding. After all, they were right there. Surely they understood. And what is more significant yet is that Christ did not take any steps to correct their understanding. He did not tell them that they were in the kingdom. He did not tell them that they misunderstood the kingdom. He did not tell them it was a spiritual kingdom or any such thing. He simply said, "It is not for you to know when." Clearly Christ conceded that the disciples were right to 1) know that they were not in the kingdom, and 2) to expect an OT fulfillment of the idea of the kingdom. Yet you want to deny the apostles, these successors of Christ as you call them, their understanding.

[ March 29, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Being obedient to the faith is "walking in love toward one another" Anyone who does not love is NOT born of God, THAT is scripture.We are to be obedient to the "faith". I could not even begin to copy paste everything that scriptures speak on love, as well as faith. Heres just a handful.

All these show to believe sound doctrine is to believe in Christ Jesus and love one another as Jesus said.

John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

Rom 12:9 [Be] kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour PREFERRING ONE ANOTHER;

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Ephes 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which PASSETH KNOWLEDGE, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Gal 5:13 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Ephes 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law.

1John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

1John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

1 John 4:17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

1John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

1John 4:21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

1John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Ephes 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

Ephes 6:23 Peace [be] to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

2Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast heard of me, in FAITH AND LOVE which is in Christ Jesus.

Heb 6:10 For God [is] not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

James 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

1Thes 4:9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

Scriptures and Christ....

Jesus said, "The scriptures testify of Him". They ARE DEEP and the mind of Christ expounds to us those things speaking of Him.

1Corinth 2:10 But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinth 2:10 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Ephes 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Adam and Eve becoming one flesh paul says speaks of Christ.

Col 1:26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Col 2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Col 4:3 Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:

1Tim 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

For its the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of Kings to search it out= Bereans of more noble character for they searched to see what Paul was saying was true.

1Corinth 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

The Testimony of Jesus Christ is the Spirit of prophesy. Seeing Him in them is seeing correctly.

Saying there are no "deep" truths as you put it is not scriptural in that we are to see Him in them. But there were some among Jesus's day who took away the keys to knowledge and prevented others from seeing these things but jesus told them they did not enter in themselves.

I believe the scriptures speak of Him in a "mystery" and the Spirit teaches us and we are to compare "Spiritual words" expressing "Spiritual Truths". Thats what they speak of and its scriptural. The letter kills.

In Him Kim

[ March 29, 2002, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Star ]

 

I know well what the Scripture says about love. I have spent now 22 messages in the first three chapters of 1 John on Sunday mornings. If you read that book very closely you will find that right alongside of love as evidence of being born of God is holding to the truth. If anyone does not hold to the truth he is not born of God. The "faith" is the truth about God. I say what I do because I believe the "faith."

If you read 2 John, you find what we are supposed to do with those who do not hold to the truth. What I am confronting here is about the truth of God's word. That is the issue. We cannot love if we do it apart from truth.

BTW, as far as the Davidic covenant go, Carson and I can disagree. However, when Carson starts tying this to the papacy, he has clearly overstepped the bounds of Scripture. Additionally, Carson's soteriology cannot be commended by Scripture. These last two are issues of truth that we as believers and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ must take a stand on. When someone denies the person and work of Christ, John says that such a person does not have the Father. It pains me to accept that there are sincere people in that state, but I can only say what Scripture says.

I don't believe I said there were no deep truths. What I said was that there are no hidden truths. The Scriptures speak for themselves. Many times, in an effort to find something extra, we end up missing the plain beauty of the text. There is plenty in the plain meaning of the text that we don't need to search for something that is not there.

Why do you believe that Scriptures speak of Christ in a mystery? It seems to me that every time we see Christ connected with a "mystery" it is in the context of proclamation. In other words, the apostles opened up that mystery through the NT writings.

The "spiritual truths with spiritual words" does not mean that truth is extra to the plain meaning. It is in a passage that is discussing the fact that unregenerate man cannot understand the significance (application to him) of Scripture. He can understand the meaning of the words. He simply cannot understand the significance to him.

You make Scripture complicated with all your similitudes and the like that have no basis in scriptural interpretation. You will search in vain to find a biblical author interpreting SCripture in the same manner you have. There is a reason for that: It is an invalid method of interpretation. God used words because words mean things. If he had wanted to say something else, he would have used different words.

For instance, in this discussion we are talking about the kingdom of David. God used words that very clearly indicate he was talking about the earthly kingdom of David and David's rule over the Jewish people. If God had meant to communicate something else (such as a heavenly kingdom or a heavenly people) he would have used words that would have communicated that. The point is that we need to be simple enough to take God for what he says.

 

Larry,
What and where in scripture speaks of the definition of "holding to the truth"? Can you please share this with us, because you left it "undefined" by the word of God.

You said we needn't search further seeing that it is plain as day in the text. Yet we have the gospel of Christ but Paul preached the "mystery of the gospel" or the light of the gospel. Plain text still is not a revelation Paul prayed those who listened to him would recieve.

Why do I believe they speak of Him in a mystery? Because the scriptures declare they do. I provided you verses already.

The Appostles opened up a few of them Paul would GN to more concerning the Lord, he didn't share "those". As far as it pertains to Paul only "hinting at" Adam and the Woman becoming one flesh he never expounded on it in great detail, so in searching out what Paul said was a Mystery I found Paul to be True.

Larry, for a man of the "cloth" (so to speak) You rarely share Gods words or speak them as we are encouraged to do. So please share from scripture YOUR POINT according to THEM so we can discuss things from His word so I understand that you first "believe" in His word and are drawing your stance from there, because I cannot find your stance on any of the words you are speaking. Can you do me that favor please? Because you "think it" doesn't make it valid. I'm trying to see your points as scripture supports yet you back nothing from scripture see?

If I make scripture "complicated" through scriptures I'm not the one who started it. God says in Hosea that He multiplied visions and USED SIMILITUDES by the ministry of the Prophets. So Hes using them I just see Christ in them.

Your reasoning of the scriptures and how YOU think they should speak doesn't hold weight with the word of God. Paul often said these things were a "shadow", "patern", Adam a similitude of the one who was to come. That the reality however is found in christ.

YOU must support from the word you confess to believe that it speaks in the manner that you claim it does. I supported mine you support yours FROM SCRIPTURE please or it doesn't hold weight with me.

God shows Spiritual truths through what has been made so seeing the Kingdom of David can be the springboard into the greater reality of jesus Christ.

But let me ask you how does the Old testament speak of Christ since the summing up of ALL THINGS are IN CHRIST. There is a viel over hearts it says to this day when reading the Old testament in Christ that veil is removed and you begin to see all things as speaking of Christ.

There is nothing unbiblical about this. Kind like Jesus's servents filling the "six" clay jars with water (The word) and Jesus touches them and the water changes to Wine. Life and Spirit awakening to the fact that all these things bear witness of Him

Col 1:9... to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Col 2:3 (Christ)In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

1Corinth 1:9 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Corinth 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

So I see many things that encourage us to the contrary, and I found that what I'm seeing of Christ in this way blesses me. I still come to the foot of the cross in my studing and see the testimony of Christ and am in Awe of the Wisdom of God, yet I trust the Spirit of Truth to teach me, believing in the promises of the new covenent. Theres no other way I can read them anymore the flavor changed and they are pure inspiration speaking only of Christ and His work. I just love digging into them and finding them.

My only pleasure

In Him Kim

 

Are you serious with a question like this? Surely if you have read Scripture you are not serious. The faith is defined as the doctrine of Scripture and all its implications in more places than I can list here. Start with 1 John and the doctrine of Christ, sin, and salvation. Go to Romans on the doctrine of justification; Ephesians on the doctrine of the church and the new life, and on and on. All through Scripture we are warned to hold to the faith (Col 1; Heb 3; Heb 6; Gal 1; 1 John 1-5; Jude 3). We are likewise exhorted to contend for the faith (Rom 16; 2 Thess 3; Jude; 2 Peter; 2 John; 3 John; Gal 1; 2 Tim 4; Titus 1). These commands appear so often in Scripture, it is remarkable that one who has studied it would ask for proof.

Paul did not pray that his hearers would receive revelation but that they would receive the gospel, the mystery that he was proclaiming. When he proclaimed it it was no longer a mystery. It was "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Paul opened the mystery (Eph 3) and declared it publicly and called people to respond to it.

I saw no verses relating to Christ being a mystery still. Please refresh our memories.

What??? The one flesh relationship is no mystery. Where did Paul "hint" at this? Here you have seen a "mystery" where there is no mystery.

Can you do me a favor? Browse through these threads and look for my posts. You might say a lot about my posts but "lack of Scripture" is certainly not among a legitimate complaint. And you certainly haven't been in any of my services.

So why doesn't this apply to you? You preface post after post with your thoughts and then misuse Scripture to support them. You need to submit your imagination to the text. That God used parables (which is what a similitude is) and visions in times of revelation is not the issue. He is no longer in the process of revelation in this age. Furthermore, the parable and visions are clearly defined in Scripture. Yet you go and find a whole bunch more. You have asserted your thoughts as superior and if anyone comes and says "That's not what the text says" ( as I have done here) you cry out "similitude similitude" and assert your own thoughts anyway. Any thinking about God must be submitted to the authority of the text that reveals God to us.

The difference between you and prophets (among others) is that they were operating under revelation from God. You are not. The rule of thumb is that Scripture cannot mean what it never meant. To understand Scripture, you need to understand what the author was trying to communicate to his original reader.

Yet you do not apply this to yourself. I am simply taking the words for what they say. You are reading all kinds of stuff into them. Paul did say that many things were patterns or types. (He never uses the word similitude.) I will gladly accept what Paul says is a type. What Kim thinks is a similitude is a whole different matter and it carries no weight at all.

You have not supported your views from Scripture; you have misused it. I refuted them in another thread and you have offered nothing of substance here. You study the above passages and tell me what they say about truth. That should keep you busy for a while.

Christ is prophesied in the OT. I do not deny that. Nor do I deny any other prophecies or promises in the OT (as Carson has and apparently you agree with him). So what is your point?

This is a great example of what I am talking about. You saved me the trouble of looking through your posts to find an example. Here, you have inserted your thoughts as authoritative. The water in John 2 is water. It is not the word; there is nothing in the text of John that would lead you to believe that. It is not a picture of anything. It is water. The point of the pericope is to demonstrate Jesus' power. Yet you have gone beyond the text and started making stuff up that Scripture never intended to teach. YOu have absolutely no scriptural basis to say this.

Kim, I will not continue to go around about this. I would urge you to get ahold of some good books on hermeneutics to study this issue of interpretation. Scripture has so much meat in it that we do not need fluff. Yet when we misuse Scripture we risk losing the message that God has for us. We must be bound by the text.

Here are some good resources that will be instructive, from simple to more difficult:

Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth
Henry Virkler, Hermeneutics
Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics
Grant R. Osborne [/i]The Hermeneutical Spiral[/i]

These books will help to open up the Scripture as it was intended by God to be read. We need no longer search for some mystical haze of imagination. We can trust the Holy Spirit to mediate to us through the words of the text just as God said he would (1 Cor 2:10ff).

 

Are you serious with a question like this? Surely if you have read Scripture you are not serious. The faith is defined as the doctrine of Scripture and all its implications in more places than I can list here. Start with 1 John and the doctrine of Christ, sin, and salvation. Go to Romans on the doctrine of justification; Ephesians on the doctrine of the church and the new life, and on and on. All through Scripture we are warned to hold to the faith (Col 1; Heb 3; Heb 6; Gal 1; 1 John 1-5; Jude 3). We are likewise exhorted to contend for the faith (Rom 16; 2 Thess 3; Jude; 2 Peter; 2 John; 3 John; Gal 1; 2 Tim 4; Titus 1). These commands appear so often in Scripture, it is remarkable that one who has studied it would ask for proof.

I hold to the Faith of Jesus Christ where do I err? When I asked you about what it meant (in holding to the Truth) I wanted to know where were YOU coming from because you said I didn't hold to those truths, I do, but you thought I didn't so I needed you to clarify your point because you were thinking I was not holding to them, although I do they are "fundamental principles" Paul said, and that we were not to lay again the foundation of dead works.

Thats what I was talking about in my other threads, Faith, and law. Faith in Christ is where I stand.

Paul did not pray that his hearers would receive revelation but that they would receive the gospel, the mystery that he was proclaiming. When he proclaimed it it was no longer a mystery. It was "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Paul opened the mystery (Eph 3) and declared it publicly and called people to respond to it.

PAUL DID PRAY for them to recieve a Spirit of wisdom and revelation
In Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

I saw no verses relating to Christ being a mystery still. Please refresh our memories

Ephes 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Paul just said here that he wrote before of these in "few words".

Mystery Rom 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
2Corinth 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

Col 1:26 [Even] the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Colos 1:27 To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

1Corinth 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

What Paul did is speak of the things of Old as Jesus said, a Teacher of the law bringeth out old treasures as well as new.

And where does it say that the Phophets had "revelation" can you point that out to me, from what I understand Daniel did NOT understand the visions

What??? The one flesh relationship is no mystery. Where did Paul "hint" at this? Here you have seen a "mystery" where there is no mystery.

Ephes 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his FLESH, and of his BONES.
Ephes 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh
Ephes 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
(speaks of the woman and man typing Christ and the Church)

He never says "flesh and blood" BUT she is HIS "flesh and bone" Because HE IS THE BLOOD (Or LIFE of HER) as in Lev the LIFE of the creature is in its blood. The BLOOD OF CHRIST. HIS LIFE IN HER.

Can you do me a favor? Browse through these threads and look for my posts. You might say a lot about my posts but "lack of Scripture" is certainly not among a legitimate complaint. And you certainly haven't been in any of my services.

In regard to conversations with me you don't use them to prove your point.

So why doesn't this apply to you? You preface post after post with your thoughts and then misuse Scripture to support them. You need to submit your imagination to the text. That God used parables (which is what a similitude is) and visions in times of revelation is not the issue. He is no longer in the process of revelation in this age. Furthermore, the parable and visions are clearly defined in Scripture. Yet you go and find a whole bunch more. You have asserted your thoughts as superior and if anyone comes and says "That's not what the text says" ( as I have done here) you cry out "similitude similitude" and assert your own thoughts anyway. Any thinking about God must be submitted to the authority of the text that reveals God to us.

Psalm 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of OLD:

Mark 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

How have I asserted that my thoughts are superior, please tell me? I'm no prophet and never have claimed to be. On the threads in the baptist form you guys were trying to get me to say "something" about myself, I'm just a simple believer in Christ our Lord, so where you come up with that assumption is beyond me.

Yet you do not apply this to yourself. I am simply taking the words for what they say. You are reading all kinds of stuff into them. Paul did say that many things were patterns or types. (He never uses the word similitude.) I will gladly accept what Paul says is a type. What Kim thinks is a similitude is a whole different matter and it carries no weight at all.

Ok here ya go. Also look at "similitudes" as mentioned in the Old Testament theres more there, Paul sees that and speaks in agreement with them.

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the SIMILITUDE of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

Romans 5;14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the SIMILITUDE of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You have not supported your views from Scripture; you have misused it. I refuted them in another thread and you have offered nothing of substance here. You study the above passages and tell me what they say about truth. That should keep you busy for a while.

How so have I misused them and by what principle? The Word of God, or by looking into the perfect law as encouraged by Paul. In reference to the Tree in the garden the "principle" of that tree "typing" the law to come is obvious to me. You look into nothing, so you can't be critical of us who do.

In reference to the clay Jars, which number represents the number of a man?
Then tell me what the "water" means as it applies to our being washed?
The Wine what does that represent to you?

I see clay jars (six as mans numbers) being filled with the word of Truth and Jesus changing into life and Spirit in a "picture"... So If I see it that way why TO YOU am I in some great "error"? Is this not what Christ does? Whats your point and what do you do, but just pick fault with everything even on those who see something as BEING JESUS. ISN'T HE THE ONE WE ARE TO SEE?

Do you think Jesus would get uptight because we are LOOKING FOR HIM, SEEKING HIM, AND FINDING HIM.

Your reproof is meaningless its just a fault finding Spirit, holding no joy of seeing Christ and you tear down I have yet to see you lift up anyone.

Thank you though for those book references, but I like what I see and if what I need is a correction in order to become like you I'm not interested in that kind of spirituality.

Can you imagine Christ speaking to those unlearned and untaught saying, "Go now, take a course in Huemetrics when you come to the same conclusions as everyone else then come follow me"

No... I think not My foundation is on the work of Christ on the cross and in trusting in His Spirit not in someone I find to be very critical who tosses the weight of a "collar" around, which doesn't mean too much according to the Spirit of things.

Sorry but we are very two different people. You think God is dead and His word is "letter" I think God is very real, who gives revelation by the Spirit to know Him better and His words are Spirit and life.

In Him Kim

 

Hi' friends. Carson is right about the Church fulfilling the promise in the Davidic Covenant - but totally mistaken in identifying the Bride of Christ with the Roman Catholic religion. The latter is absent from the pages of the NT. When the Roman church apostasised it returned to the Old Covenant for a priesthood and sacrificial system; to Judaism for a works-righteousness; and to Babylon for its mystery and idols. The real Church existed within and without the corrupt institution, and as the Spirit revived and gave more light the gospel of His grace has spread to every nation. The RCC of today is an enemy of all righteousness and true believers in her should leave and meet with their brethren in any church that holds to the essentials of the gospel.

In His Love

Ian

 

Ian,

I agree on that one point about "specifically" the RCC. I myself used to think "catholic" as meaning the "Roman catholic insitution" But I believe (not sure if its true) That "Catholic" in the truest sense of the Word means "Universal" by "itself". Some Catholics realize this IS exactly what "Catholic" means. Yet "some" relate the term "Catholic" to the traditional institution or particular "breed" not in the truest sense of the word.

So I see "Catholic" as meaning "Universal" not relating it at all to a "breed" of tradition but in the True sense of the definition. Perhaps its better to "drop" the word "catholic" in that sense and draw upon the true meaning ascribing to what is "meant" by the word verses how it is percieved to mean... Like, "Catholic beliefs verses "such and such".

One may be a baptist but walk in Truth I would consider them part of the "Universal" (defined in a truth as Catholic) Did that make any sense?

Many people go into places to be a light where there may be darkness, that darkness is in individuals who are among various places inside many different creeds belonging to a specific denomination makes you no more correct if you don't seek the Truth Himself (who alone can make one free). To me I just look to where I see a "Love of Christ" in such a one. Because I love Christ I find that love (Of Christ) in another very magnetic. But there is a type of religious spirit which always seeks to tear down, to find fault, has an evil eye, see things as unclean, and is malicious to others in Christs name not perceiving such a one after the Spirit but after the name of their denomination.

Worshipping in Spirit and in Truth is not going to church once a week on a certain day at a certain time for a specified period of time. To walk in love is. Against Love there is law. You can walk in love wherever you go and share that love with others. Loving even ones own enemies.

Looking at it from a human perspective I was baptised Catholic but never stepped foot in the church or heard the gospel. At a friend of mines house (while she was out back) A person giving out tracts knocked on her door, I answered. I didn't know this at the time but it was a Jehovahs witness. I didn't want to talk to her but graciously recieved the tract not knowing what they were or where they came from. I just saw something about "Gods word" and I saw sentences with "thees and thous" in it that I could not understand. So it spoke of "The bible" and talked about "being saved". I tossed out the tract and called my Aunt who was a "Nun" (formerly) in the Catholic Church and she sent me a bible. I read and read and read and loved it wanting to know more, I decided to go to church. Hey! I thought, theres one right down the street from me and it was a "baptist church" (not knowing the differences at all thinking they were all alike).

I went in and was baptised in the name of Christ with this ceremonial washing prescribed and encouraged by the pastor and seeing it in scripture I never raised any question. I ended up leaving after a few incidents that left me very sad one of which (back then) I was poor and the pastor said that we should wear our best clothes to church out of respect to God. Crying (being gulible and young in Christ) I remember telling God I meant no disrespect to Him that I would buy nicer clothes if thats what he wanted (see how young and dumb I was?) But later that evening God showed me in His word that it was wrong of that pastor to say that to me. I have this grown in something seeing Him as True and what that pastor said was wrong.

So I don't conclude He is a devil because he said something like this to me but that he was wrong. If I concluded ALL baptists alike on the basis of one man verses the spirit of the individual I would be wrong. I have had other denominations take my money and use it wrongly, I see fault in each one among the leadership but God works it together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

I see JW giving me a tract, My Catholic Aunt buying me a bible a baptist church minister teaching me to listen to what God says verses what He says. All three denominations present doing a little something in their own ways leading and bringing me to Christ yet without a word OR getting it "right" (as it is percieved by the majority considering the different denominations present in my circumstance). Now I just gather with brothers and sisters in Christ in homes and get scrutinized for that lol! Wouldn't matter where I went someone would find fault.

I did go "on and on" forgive me, but its possible that God can work while everyone is getting it wrong and draw others to HIMSELF.

In Him Kim

 

Kim, you are quite right about 'catholic' meaning universal. The true Church is composed of members from every nation and tribe.

Thank you for sharing something of your testimony. God is certainly gracious. I grew up in an unbelieving Protestant home, in an area where most people were RC. I'm the only one I know of the Protestants in that area whom God has saved, but He wonderfully converted a whole family of RC folk!

I feel for your treatment be that unwise pastor. But as you have found out, even the foolishness of men is made to serve His purpose.

The key to understanding how to relate to 'churches' is to follow the precept and example of Scripture and not of man's reasoning. We are to bear long with true brethren, striving to maintain unity and truth. But for those who pervert the gospel, we are to regard them as enemies of the Lord and have no fellowship with them. Paul's attitude regarding the judaisers in Galatia is an example. Even true brothers who openly sin are to be rebuked and if they fail to repent are to be put out of the church. Again, Paul's rebuke of Peter as recorded in Galatians, and his instructions to the Corithians regarding the fornicator are helpful.

What I'm saying is that we are not to accept every spirit who calls themselves Christian, but are to test the spirits whether they are of God. The JWs, Mormons, RCs, etc. by their very articles of faith exclude themselves from the true Church. Some true believers may exist in those institutions but they should 'come out from among them' and be holy unto the Lord.

In His Love

Ian

 

I feel for your treatment be that unwise pastor. But as you have found out, even the foolishness of men is made to serve His purpose.

Amen Ian

But I do realize one thing in some things its best not to "pull up the tares" lest we pull up the "wheat" also. In a fragile state as a new Christian one could easily pull up those who are new in Christ, just learning of Him. I saw no harm done to myself in what others might call "false doctrine" because as I was drawn to Christ I considered His word above all those surrounding my conversion. God definately worked these things out to benefit me in that I desired HIM not a tribal mentality and being without knowledge as a babe in Christ still did not hinder me in that regard. God is True and Faithful I think what would have hindered me is if everyone would have been inspecting the surrounding facts concerning my conversion but considering I didn't know any better to know "any differences" to tell anyone about it saved my conversion experience in that to me was "pure" and simple in heart in the midst of such different doctrines present.

Everyone had a part in it and neither did anyone try to convert me to "self" or to "denomination" though all belonged to various different ones. Neither did any win me to themselves in that regard but I have worked out my own salvation and this lead me to Christ in the midst of all of them.

God is Good in Christ

In Him Kim

[ April 01, 2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Star ]

 

To keep this on topic, how can you say that the Davidic covenant is fulfilled with someone besides the ones to whom it was made? Can a God of truth and verity rescind his covenant with one person or people to give it to another?

I cannot see how this view coincides with what God has revealed to us about himself. If God makes a covenant with someone, he is bound by himself (since he can sware by no greater) to keep it with the person or people to whom he made it. For him to remove his covenant from one person and give it to another would make God to be a liar.

 

Pastor Larry said: 'To keep this on topic, how can you say that the Davidic covenant is fulfilled with someone besides the ones to whom it was made? Can a God of truth and verity rescind his covenant with one person or people to give it to another?
I cannot see how this view coincides with what God has revealed to us about himself. If God makes a covenant with someone, he is bound by himself (since he can sware by no greater) to keep it with the person or people to whom he made it. For him to remove his covenant from one person and give it to another would make God to be a liar.'

Ian says: I agree with what you say about God's veracity. It is just that you misunderstand His promise - for example, David appears to be the receipient of the promise of immediate resurrection, yet Scripture shows it was of Christ he spoke. Christ is the One who sits on David's throne, even though it was promised that David would be the Shepherd of Israel, Ezek.34:23.

Cosider also:
Acts 2
22"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken[1] by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25For David says concerning Him:

"I foresaw the LORD always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
27For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
28You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.'[2]

29"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,[3] 31he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. 33Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34"For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:

"The LORD said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
35Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."'[4]

36"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
37Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
38Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

The Church is the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers:
Acts 15:14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:

16'After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD.
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.'

The difficulty is if we see the Church as something other than the Israel of God, Israel renewed under the New Covenant. If we see the Church as something entirely new and different from the Israel to whom the promises were given, then the promises are yet to be fulfilled. But the Jewish believers of the NT times saw the Church as the continuation of Israel, as Israel purified of her idolatries and enjoying the fulfilment of the promises. It took some persuation to make them see that the Gentile believers were now a part of them, that those formerly strangers to the promises and aliens to the commonwealth of Israel had been brought in.

As a Gentile, I bless God for fulfilling Is.49:6, 'Indeed He says,
"It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth."'


In His Love

Ian

 

Obviously I disagree for this reason: There is no way you can read the text of the Davidic covenant and get this out of it. The text is clear. So we are left with God misrepresenting himself to David. The immediate resurrection issue is also one I dispute. I do not see any promise of immediate resurrection.

On Acts 2, if you read the passage more closely, it does not say that the DC was fulfilled but merely that this was necessary for the fulfilment. Christ had to rise so that he can reign on David's throne. Yet now he is on his Father's throne. I think you read the text with your mind already made up on this one.

Here again, you make this passage say something that it doesn't say. And with this the words of the prophets agree,. This is far different than "This is the fulfillment of the words of the prophet." In fact what the disciples were testifying to and what I am espousing is agreed to by the prophets. A while back I posted an article on this where this passage was explained in its context to mean just the opposite of what you take it to mean. Here it is with another article that shoudl be of interest to this discussion.

Charles Zimmerman, "To This Agree the Words of the Prophets": Critical Monograph on Acts 15:14–17—Grace Journal—V4 #3:28–40—Fall 63—28

John F. Walvoord, Th.D. "Eschatological Problems VII: The Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant" Bibliotheca Sacra—V102 #406—Apr 45—153

First why is this a problem? I don't see the problem. I disagree that the Jewish believers in the NT saw the church as the continuation of Israel. I think Paul was explicit in Rom 11 that the church was not the continuation of Israel.

In short, I think all the passages you cite have more probably explanations that do not require shifting the plain meaning of the words. I think you are taking way too much liberty with the text to arrive at your conclusion.

 

Carson said: 'Now, only if you would accept the Old Testament background that lies behind Jesus' words to Peter in Mt 16:16-19, and realize that the Christ has royal ministers.. Peter having primacy. It's just one step away, you're almost there!'

Ian says: The 12 are certainly His royal ministers. But too much is made of Peter's 'primacy' - Paul certainly knew nothing of it, 'But from those who seemed to be something--whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man--for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.' Galatians 2:6-9.

The more important point is that Peter has no connection to the impostors who claim his office today: his theology, practice, attitude are poles apart from the power-hungry idolators of the Papacy. I know it is comforting to the flesh to have an infallible leadership, but the Spirit of Christ within a true Christian will draw him/her to the infallible words the apostles left us and will cause us to reject as demonic the traditions and institutions of men who have turned away from the Truth.

Carson, one cannot cannot love God and Mammon, nor worship at the temple of God and idols. If the Roman Catholic Church is the true church then our bible is worth no more to us than it is to the JW's: we are captive to the organisation's interpretations, no matter how twisted.

Yes, true Christians differ over understanding of many issues - witness Pastor Larry and myself - but we are agreed on the essentials of the faith. The divisions among the people of God will be healed one day, when we see Him face to face and all our puzzles are solved. The Roman monolith is united only in its' agreement to keep a powerful institution intact and to gain as much more power as it can. We can see how its' doctrines are malleable enough for the Muslim, Jews, Hindus, pagans of all sorts to be ultimately saved according to the latest pronouncements of the 'infallible' head of that organisation. The Head of the true church however assures us all that those who believe not in Him are condemned already. Worlds apart.

By His Grace

Ian

 

I have to agree with Ian here that the city gates were the twelve appostles established by Christ. That the scripture testifies to that which is in scripture concerning the "twelve".

In Him Kim

 

Carson said: 'Are you referring to John Paul II as power-hungry, and, are you saying that he doesn't succeed the apostle Peter as Bishop of Rome?'

Ian says: Exactly.

Carson said: 'The royal ministers in the OT had successors, and each held an office that continued after the death of each royal minister. Death no longer has power over our king, who is resurrected.. there will be no more Davidic kings. The ministers will continue to be appointed until the Second Coming.'

Ian says: No more Davidic kings - Christ reigns from heaven. No more apostles - they reign with Him. The foundation of apostles and prophets cannot continue being laid but rather is built on as believers are added to the temple of God. For a pope to be Peter's successor we would have many more than 12 apostles.

Carson said: 'What did St. Irenaeus of Lyon have to say about the Bishop of Rome ca. 180 AD?'

Ian says: Irenaeus was at the beginning of the rise of apostasy in the Church. Good men allowed their human reasoning and sinful desires to infect the Church, just as they do today in Evangelical churches. When it is allowed to bear fruit, it results in apostasy. Many a true local church today will be a synagogue of Satan in a generation or so. That is what happened to the church in Rome.

Carson said: 'As an aside, if you would wish to win Catholics over to the "true Faith" (whatever that is to you, perhaps an eclectic set of fundamentals), I would suggest dropping the incessant bigotry. A bigot is one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions, and phrases like cause us to reject as demonic, one cannot cannot love God and Mammon, temple of God and idols, impostors, power-hungry idolators, etc. are improper to Christian dialogue. They place bastions between the children of God, contrary to the fruit of the Spirit of Christ, which is unity.'

Ian says: Intolerantly devoted to my own opinions would make me a bigot. But what about intolerantly devoted to 'the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints' Jude 3 - is that bigotry? I strive to take my attitudes from the example of the Lord Jesus and the apostles; you will find their words against heresy and false gospels even more severe than my poor expressions. I pray for you and all who read my words that they will be obedient to God's word. For the lost that they would repent and believe; for the saints that they would be edified. Unity is for brothers united by the blood of Christ, not for them and the world. John 17:9.

By His Grace

Ian