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

isn't the "good news" of the Gospel that God in Christ death/resurrection establishes a new covenant between God and all those saved by the Cross of Christ though?

 

Preachinginjesus,
You are totally wrong. Here is some examples of Calvinist dispys

http://www.dennyburk.com/tommy-nelson-a-real-live-dispensationalist/

http://theologica.ning.com/group/calvinist-dispensationalists

http://magnifygod.wordpress.com/2006/08/04/a-reformed-dispensationalist/

Here are some Arminian Covenants:

http://www.fwponline.cc/v18n2/v18n2reasonera.html

Here is a copy from the Puritian board on the subject of Covenant Arminians

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/arminian-covenantal-please-enlighten-me-19933/

Instead of calling my posts in error, since you are a pastor, maybe you should think before you speak.

You are a pastor???? And call a fellow Christian a fool???? The only fools I know are the members of the congregation that called you.

 

We have seen example after example of what some claiming to be pastors (who knows on a board like this), men who have been called of God to lead a local church, and probably have very advanced degrees from some seminary. They give sermons every week supposedly calling for salvation, and encouraging the congregation. Yet on this board, there are those who show no evidence of pastoral qualities. They belittle opinions of laymen, while not doing too well themselves. When a pastor? starts calling fellow posters fools, it is time for him to turn in his ordination papers. But no, next Sunday, they smile, shake hands, and play kumbaya with the congregation.

In fact, this aids and abets the spread of names like heresy, idol worship, etc. Here is a sentence that is accurate. Think about it.

PreachinginJesus, a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, calls fellow posters fools.

 

saturnneptune is correct, there are quite a few churches that believe in the doctrines of grace and are dispensational. Most of these churches are Baptist churches. Personally I think dispensationalism and the doctrines of grace are a hard fit. John MacArthur has run into some problems combining the two (i.e. his "leaky dispensationalist" self-description).

 

I take it that you don't have much respect for MacArthur's writings, though he be both Calvinistic and dispensational at the same time.

 

If you prefer to call it the Church Age, we can use that term. There are no churches in the OT. It is the period of time beginning at Pentecost and will end at the Second Coming of Christ. During this time God deals with his children in grace. After the rapture takes place He will deal with them in judgement. Right now Christ offers grace as Savior; tomorrow He may be one's judge.

You just contradicted yourself. "God has always had grace...yada yada..."
The Bible teaches that one is saved by grace through faith not by covenants. You are teaching a false gospel. There is no covenant in the gospel. If there is then go all the way and tell me of your belief in infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. That is the logical conclusion of such a covenant.

No, they just are one step from it though.
And they do sprinkle their babies. It takes place of circumcision by which they enter into a so-called covenantal relationship that the Bible doesn't teach. It is man-made theology, not at all Biblical. But why call yourself Baptist if you believe Presbyterian doctrine?

When I trusted Christ as my Savior I entered into a relationship, not a covenant. My faith is not a religion (covenant), it is a relationship; a relationship with Christ my Savior.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

I’m a child of the King,
A child of the King:
With Jesus my Savior,
I’m a child of the King.

I don't believe you know the difference between Reformed and Calvinist, do you?
Neither do you seem to realize that there are many Calvinistic dispensationalists such as John MacArthur. He is one of those who teaches the "Lordship salvation (heresy)" and denies the Biblical truth of carnal Christians. But he is dispensational.

First I am not in error concerning what the Bible teaches on carnal Christians. You can read it for yourself:

1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
--I do not deny the Word of God.
I trust God's Word over the words and opinions of men.
The commentaries that I have written are based on Scripture, which is my final authority in all things; not Calvinism nor creeds.
In the end I am very thankful and grateful that I am accountable to the Lord my Savior and not to a man like Calvin.

 

I just showed where there are Calvinist dispys and Arminian Covenants. In light of certain posters being ripped to shreds by DHK, it is obvious to see where the error and lack of research lies.

 

I couldn't agree with you more and ask if you are really taking your own advice? Reason I ask is that I don't recal seeing you correct any of the rampant mischaracterizations of dispensational and/or premil theology by the amil/post mil crowd on this board. Maybe I'm not carefully reading your posts?

Have you ever noticed that on this board the covenant crowd expects every dispensationalist to be in total agreement on every aspect of their theology and when disagreement is found it is used by them as a device to disprove the entire system? And yet diversity of opinion is not only tolorated, it is seen as a real strength among the covenant believers? Have you ever noticed this or would you say that perhaps I'm just a tad bit sensative on this issue?

 

For example________________.

 

Right again as usual

 

Give him a chance, he wore out his right mouse button and is getting a new one.

 

Saturneptune, please do not overreact as you are.

Well, I don't consider most of these individuals to be thoroughgoing Calvinists. Agian, Calvinism begins and ends with Calvin's theology. If you're going to be a dispensationalist and Augustinian then you need to adopt the Reformed mantra. Calvin so carefully articulates the covenantal position.

Also, I would challenge you to find me a profound scholar (Burk doesn't count, he's not profound and Nelson, a fine pastor, has lots of holes in his presentation) who is an admitted Calvinist and presents a coherent dispensational theology. The rest of your links are pedestrian theologizing. By that I mean they are non-articulate attempts to confine Calvin's theology to their paradigm. I don't say this to be brutish, but to point out that some attempts at theology are better than others. We need to speak honestly about poor attempts at theology. These above referenced links are, with one exception, not to theologians but are done by well intentioned lay persons. Find me some good theologians and we can discuss.

This is curious, and perhaps the root of the thing. I have never said Ariminians (there are more than two options btw) couldn't be Covenantal or Dispensational. Just because someone is dispensational doens't automatically mean they'll be either Reformed or Covenantal. The same for Arminian. The same for the other theological options. However, when one's entire theological prolegomena has been articulated by its namesake, then we must begin with the assumptions of that founder's theology. Calvin makes no room for a dispensational view, Calvinsim is unable to adopt a dispensationalist view.

Wow, really?

Well first of all, calm down. Maybe a breathing exercise or something. Then, once you've collected yourself, realize that I didn't say you are a fool (in fact I encouraged you at the top of the original reply) but that when you make statements about dead theologians being as useful as toilet paper you make yourself out to be one.

Are you really going to defend that sentence. I don't know where that view comes from but it is ridiculous and has no place in theological discourse. This is big-boy conversation time, not infantile reply time. The theologians Iconoclast is referencing are profound and remarkable thinkers. Their work is deep and should be respected. Yet you find them as useful as toilet paper. That tells me alot about a person. There are plenty of theologians whose conclusions, possibly lives, I don't agree with (i.e. Tillich, Bultmann, etc) but I respect them and have volumes of their work on my shelves.

Any person who suggests that the works and texts of theologians and thinkers should be used as toilet paper has a lot to learn and not much to contribute to a growing conversation. I would venture to say that many of the dead theologians Iconoclast (and others) are referencing are more erudite and contemplative than the rambling lot of recent dispensationals who attempt to confine the aim of the Scriptures to reinstitution of Israel.

Of course, if you disagree you can just call me a bad pastor and question the legitimacy of my ministry. That is a fine rejoinder I suppose.

Please see my above points. I've never called you or your ministry into question. I've never said you are an idiot or a fool, but simply noted that when you say dead theologians of a different theological genre are as useful as toilet paper then you sound like one. That kind of voice has no place in reasonable theological discourse.

I don't know why this upsets you so much, but the reality is that civil discourse begins and ends with the realization that respect is to be accorded to those who disagree. When we say others' views, particularly the views of esteemed and learned individuals who have lasted long after their lives, are more useful as remnants in the septic systems of our homes and communities we narrow our focus to such a degree that makes us look silly and foolish.

Your entire initial post that I replied to had much error and dangerous, overreaching conclusions. My challenge to you is to rethink how you're presenting your position. I don't agree with Iconoclast on a great number of things. As I understand his theology there is much I respect, but also much I disagree with. Yet your mischaracterization was so blatant that I felt the need to offer clarifying remarks. If you cannot accept that then theological conversation might not be for you. If you only wish to read people who you agree with or bolster your a priori assumptions then theological conversation might not be for you.

I did not and have not called you a fool, perhaps my vocal inflection didn't carry through the keyboard, but I did say when you discard remarkable thinkers as you have you sound like one.

 

I don't think I've responded to an eschatology thread in months. Honestly, I can't remember the last one I replied to. Since my position is generally not in keeping with others around here I usually stay away since I don't enjoy being told I'm a bad pastor. Of course when I encounter any mischaracterizations I say something. I'm an equal opportunity corrector.

I do this more in the politics area. There are some folks who are deeply beholden to Republicanism and a few who are (or at least portray themselves as) ideological Democrats. Neither party is useful imho. They are both rotten to the core and have destroyed the intent of our nation's founders. When there is error on either side I call like I see it. But I can only do that where I'm engaged with a thread.

I personally don't understand (and never have understood) why so many people get so vocal about the differences between dispensationalism and covenantal theology. They agree on so much more than those things, yet are willing to almost go to blows (or question the legitimacy of another's salvation) over these issues. Often it is because they are talking past each other.

I'm a progressive dispensationalist who wanders closely to covenantal theology. But honestly, I don't care about the nuance enough to separate from others.

What does bother me (outside of the mischaracterizations and failure to realize there are other options) is when others trivialize the conversation.

 

Actually the differences between covenant theology and dispensational theology assuming a pre-mil (futuristic) dispensational theology are more than nuance.

Bock, Blaising and Saucey are pre-mil. An individual such as reformed preterist Iconoclast could drive his semi-truck thru the gap between the two systems that you seem to consider a nuance.

 

Nuance was probably a poor choice for a descriptive word. You are certainly correct on that. Maybe it is best to say that while there are differences, which are significant, I can't break fellowship with someone over them.

 

I agree, thanks

 

i am one also, so don't see why one must be a calvinist and hold to ALL of that systems theology, as do hold to its Sotierology, and do see that one can also hold to Dispy Views regarding isreal/Church end times etc!

Think good thing to note there are baptists who are reformed, and those who are Reformed baptists...

Main difference is One takes mainly Calvinistic salvcation views, other takes in entire theological system...