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

DHK

Before i respond in detail...and i will...I just want to see what charges i am responding to before i address the more pressing issues.

Really DHK.....lets see what you offer me in these two posts::thumbs:


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.
and these.....

1]

2]

.


3]Who are you to take the place of God?

4] You are very arrogant in this!!

5.]Paul calls them carnal, and indeed they were

6]Paul calls the one who committed adultery or incest in 1Cor.5, a brother, a saved individual.

7]This carnal fornicating Christian was obviously carnal in his lifestyle and needed to repent.

8]Now who believes the heresy?

9] You post Presbyterian theology.

10]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.

11] 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.

.
.
12]"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.

13]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

14]God does not give faith to unbelievers. They must put their faith in Christ.

15] All covenants were made with the Hebrews.
There is no covenant here.

16]This is your arrogance. You continue to accuse me of being in error

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

18]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.


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

So with this in mind..I will respond to your multitude of errors.

 

DHK

because there are so many issues to deal with I will break up the posts into smaller segments

Did i say it did? Here is what i said,which you think to avoid with this comment.

You did not respond to these verses at all ....acts 7 included...

38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


The Ot saints were a called out assembly, a Holy nation{at least the elect remnant was} it was not the Nt church however, until the last day when their will only be one assembled body...not two separate bodies,as dispensationalism wrongly proclaims.

It does not say the Nt church...just the church in the wilderness....

ecclesia is a called out assembly....you point to the unruly mob that assembled seeking to avoid the issue....

a called out assembly that is called together by God to worship Him...is a church, in the Ot .it was as a congregation or assembly .

I never said it was Jesus building The Nt Church in the Ot.

Instead of addressing the verses honestly.....your attempted response was this;

QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Your attempt at a response is;
1]accuse me of allegorizing the texts

2]Linking me with a new posted who has perhaps blasphemed

3]His method of interpretation, the same as yours began with a heretic, Origen.

So here are texts that you cannot answer to with your system...so you now say i am heretical as Origen and the new poster, as if no one will notice that you avoid the clear meaning of the texts:laugh:

 

pt2

the term church age is accepted in theological circles.....and we know what is meant by it. As to it being a "theological fact".....many in the historic faith take issue with what constitutes being the
Assembled people of God.Because of your major aversion to covenant theology, you now will deny the very essence of the Covenant, and covenant language..which is

Why dispensationalism is false is found in that it forces someone like you to deny what you read with your own eyes...in scripture..

This Covenant promise is both to Jew and Gentile...not to the jew only as you posit.
anyone can look up in a concordance these words and see they are used in ot and nt.

A rock concert is an assembly also. what makes an assembly a church is that the people of God are called to assemble or congregate for Holy purposes, under His ordained elders. This absurity you try and pull again avoids the issue, because you know enough that if you admit to it, the covenant theologian wins the day.

In first timothy i do not see mayor as one of the church rulers...unless of course this was a seeker sensitive church and did not want to offend the unruly mob with any God given authority figure,lol
That fact is you are desperately trying to play word games to avoid what you know is so.
if you teach a sunday school class.....on the "church"...you do not use ecclesia, church, or assembly??? is that what you are saying by this going around the mulberry
bush?

 

pt3

Biblical covenants are not two way,like two people shaking hands.
This part of this post can only be described as Willful ignorance.There is no real nice way to say it.With 28000 posts,and 2000 books on your book shelf,saying you teach in a college....
To begin to describe biblical covenants as if they were man made covenants between to equals is to completely ignore all biblical revelation on the Covenants.

Abraham was put to sleep...he did not go through the pieces of the divided animal he was not on equal footing with God,and furthermore we Have the Divine testimony of this very fact;

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

Jesus died on the cross for All the elect Given to Him by the Father.At regeneration, Spirit Baptism is put to my account and upon all who Jesus came to save...
We do not share in His mediatoral work except to be the recipients of His righteousness by God given repentance and faith.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Another personal attack when nothing i said hinted at that.A misunderstanding of this topic completely on your part,does not translate into a works gospel on my part.
This is just plain weak.

Covenant teaching is God given and all through the bible for the whole world, [jn3:16], [1jn2:2]not the Jew only as you claim.
If i walked into a church who denied these teachings as you do even boasting of it...i would flee out of there.
Covenants imply works religions???....God gave the covenants...This is indefensible on your part.

 

:

I stopped there because I wanted you not to offer up a distraction to the point in discussion that is why...and you are doing that very thing....I know they were written as examples...that is why I said they were a type earlier on when you accused me of being allegorical.
1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

No one disputes this at all.What I dispute is that Paul speaking to gentiles calls the Ot saints...OUR FATHERS....you have failed to mention this..instead seek to move on to another area without dealing with it.

Sure it does for anyone who takes of there dispensational glasses and tries to deal with the text.You do not seem to be ready to do that.

The ceremonial and judicial laws were completed in Christ, the moral law remains.I am sure you teach flasehood here also,as I know your system and this is why when people study it out, most of them have to leave it behind faster than a Tim Lahay fiction novel.

I like the term grace...I liked it when it was said of Noah:
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

it is not either or, but both and

The covenant is spoken of as a promise and an oath all through scripture.This also has to be willfull ignorance with 2000 books on your shelf.

If you are serious with this statement then you cannot really explain the biblical truth
as revealed in scripture. What was the promise about, on what basis is this promise made, who is the surety of the promise/ who is the mediator ?

Another example of wrongly fragmenting the word of God ,instead of rightly dividing the word of truth as many like to boast of. the revelation is part of the whole, not isolated verses like bbs in a bucket.

Jn 6 does not speak of salvation???please DHK!

Jn 6 the Covenant of Redemption explained.

 

It was addressed to Hebrew Christians at that time of transition as a word of exhortation. As Christians they were now one with gentiles who are also christians.
The book of Hebrews is for now also as part of All scripture being given of God.

hebrews 2 speaks of the Covenant of redemption as Jn 6 did, the same people in view...he took on Him :
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. literally everyone described here

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are

The kingdom is now...right now...
No dispensational trick will get you out of these verses....
ye are come.....receiving a kingdom, let us have grace....hebrews is what destoyed the false fondations of the dispensational theory for me,and many others I have met.
When someone deals with what the verses say, instead of putting them off to a future time there is no dispute at all.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

the bible uses both type and allegory-

the word figure is tupas[spelled wrong] type of Him who was to come;
<1,,5179,tupos>
"a type, figure, pattern," is translated "figures" (i.e., representations of gods) in Acts 7:43; in the RV of ver. 44 (for AV, "fashion") and in Rom. 5:14, of Adam as a "figure" of Christ. See ENSAMPLE.

<2,,499,antitupos>
an adjective, used as a noun, denotes, lit., "a striking back;" metaphorically, "resisting, adverse;" then, in a Passive sense, "struck back;" in the NT metaphorically, "corresponding to," (a) a copy of an archetype (anti, "corresponding to, and No. 1), i.e., the event or person or circumstance corresponding to the type, Heb. 9:24, RV, "like in pattern" (AV, "the figure of"), of the tabernacle, which, with its structure and appurtenances, was a pattern of that "holy place," "Heaven itself," "the true," into which Christ entered, "to appear before the face of God for us." The earthly tabernacle anticipatively represented what is now made good in Christ; it was a "figure" or "parable" (Heb. 9:9), "for the time now present," RV, i.e., pointing to the present time, not "then present," AV (see below); (b) "a corresponding type," 1 Pet. 3:21, said of baptism; the circumstances of the flood, the ark and its occupants, formed a type, and baptism forms "a corresponding type" (not an antitype), each setting forth the spiritual realities of the death, burial, and resurrection of believers in their identification with Christ. It is not a case of type and antitype, but of two types, that in Genesis, the type, and baptism, the corresponding type.

<3,,3850,parabole>
"a casting or placing side by side" (para, "beside," ballo, "to throw") with a view to comparison or resemblance, a parable, is translated "figure" in the AV of Heb. 9:9 (RV, "a parable for the time now present") and Heb. 11:19, where the return of Isaac was (parabolically, in the lit. sense of the term) figurative of resurrection (RV, "parable"). See No. 2 (a). See PARABLE.

allegory is also valid....nice try.....



22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

 

the enjoyment of the blessings of the land was conditional....but in speaking of the Covenant of redemption, and the Covenant of grace...which the previous discussion was about was unconditional....do not move the target DHK..because I zero in...

you are like the submarine commander who ordered them to send out metal objects out the torpedo tube to throw off the sonar..lol

 

Thank you for this helpful post Herald.those who are observing and want to learn and study will find it helpful...thanks again.:thumbs::thumbs:

 

:laugh::laugh: i would have to copy and paste some of your ideas to do that:laugh: Your double standard is showing...lol we see it:wavey:

 

It might have been Kim Riddlebarger ...for those who like to study;
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

 

DHK,

Actually....God is speaking to Moses explaining what took place as Moses was not there. In relaying the events of the fall and curse.....he begins to explain how the Covenant of Redemption now being made known unto man is now what we learn later is the Covenant of Grace.