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

I have studied the endtimes thoroughly. I have taught it in college. Truthfully, there are very few books available that are well thought out on this subject.

What has Matthew Henry to offer on this subject? Confusion!!
First, MH lived in the 17th century and no doubt just accepted what was the common eschatological view of the day without questioning it. Was he pre-trib, pre-mil.? Not a chance! Thus why would I use him in reference to anything with eschatology? It is like asking "Why would I use Ellen G. White as a reference to study the Sabbath, when I know I don't agree?" Though the latter be a heretic and the former not, the illustration is still appropriate.

Secondly, early on in my Christian life I did use Matthew Henry. That was fine. It is a devotional commentary. I am more mature now. I don't need devotional commentaries. I look for exegetical and expositional commentaries: those that go to the original languages; those that go not only verse by verse, but phrase by phrase, emphasizing particular words. I don't need devotions. Neither do I need his allegories. Out of all the major commentaries on my shelf, if I had one to give away (or didn't need) it would be Matthew Henry.
Other Presbyterians, or Calvinistic theologians are much better than he is:
Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, and Albert Barnes, to name a couple. I like the way Barnes attacks the RCC in his writings on the end times, but of course I still don't believe on his general outlook of what is going to happen.
One must learn to critique; sift out the good from the bad.
You don't think I read these people.
Why do you think I reject their commentaries? :tonofbricks:

 

I have been essentially a "lurker" and have spent hours enjoying this thread and learning from the back-and-forth between you two (Icon DHK)

While I am not particluarly prepared (or really interested) in debating the premises of "Covenant Theology"...I do not adhere to it: I respect the attempt at reasoned debate you have offered Icon, but I do have a question/critique:

Repeatedly, you have made the statement "This is covenant language"...or something quite akin to that, however it is always while quoting a passage which does not (at least directly) mention a covenant or even use the word....

I am not trying to falsify your arguments for your theology here, but it does suggest to me the possibility that you are coming to the Scriptures with Covenant Theology as a pre-supposition and that you are seeing something there which may not be there...namely, whatever this thing is which you call "Covenant Language"....Sometimes, a point of view may even be true, but the verses used to support it are not germaine or they are irrelevant or the may even contradict the position held....Hearing this phrase:

"That is Covenant Language"... causes me to worry about one of two possibilities, either you are believing you see in the Scriptures something which supports your position when it isn't there because it "sounds" like that sort of Theology to you, or, you have merely elected a poor debate tactic: It's simply not a convincing line to use really. To then say (as you did a few times) "don't you see it?" or "why can't you see it?" or something like that, then makes me look for the word "Covenant" and indeed not "see" the word....and then think to myself.....NOPE.... I don't see it either....why do you, since...... it isn't there.

Do you see how this is, well, subsequently hard to swallow? IF then, YOU "see" something we don't, then, the conclusion we will make is that you are "seeing" something not there, and "reading into it" something that is merely assummed.

I am not trying to disprove your Theology or defeat your arguments...consider it a critique and, honestly, a genuine concern in that, I would say that I personally believe (due to our disagreements) that you often do read into Scriptures unwarranted assumptions that aren't there....YOU are GROUNDED in your faith, and that is a good thing, but, you may be a little TOO SECURELY GROUNDED!!! :tongue3: If you take my meaning:

Anyway, carry on, and I have enjoyed the discourse you guys!!
....I am a benefitting "lurker".

 

Great post.

Now take this verse Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

Isn't this turning in the same context as 1 Kings 18:37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou [art] the LORD God, and [that] thou hast turned their heart back again.

That is they turn toward God because of God turning them.

My question is based upon passages such as:

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, Hosea 1:6 I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. in contrast to 1:7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, because of the covenant with Abraham/David concerning Christ the seed.
Hosea 8:8 Israel is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure. Jer. 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

is, that this remnant; Romans 11:15 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace: is from; Acts 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: are from the Jews of the house of Judah and from those scattered from the house of Israel scattered among the Gentiles.

Doesn't Acts 15:16,17 have the implication that during a specified period the balance of mankind that is of the children of Israel not of the remnant and the heathen will seek the remnant and the Lord in whose name they were called?

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:16,17 KJV ie The Kingdom of God

If the answer to that is yes, then are not the elect, elected for a purpose that requires salvation eternal life rather than them being elected for going to Heaven and the rest being elected for going to Hell. Is this not the misunderstanding of scripture of which J Calvin had.

Elected for a purpose that required salvation that came about by, the Grace of God the Father toward the faith of Jesus his Son, not from anything we think, believe or do.

See threads; "Is this the answer to the debate," and or "Connect the dots."

 

Wouldn't Hyper calvinism be more akin to a person holding to the Elect will be saved by god regardless if they hear the Gospel or even placed faith in jesus?

 

I have read someone reformed like a leon morris on Romans, GE ladd on revelation, and found their work very good, even while disagreeing with their views on isreal/Church as per paul, so think we can read and get good stuff from cals/non cals/arms /reformed/dispy etc...

God has blessed us with good expositors/teachers throughout all camps, just have to read with discernment!

 

Good summary. For example, many on this board believe that many of the teachings of Calvin follow Scrpiture, but no one would take up for his theories on baptism. D. James Kennedy, a noted television Presbyterian pastor, makes a lot of good points in his books, but again, we all have enough discernment to not embrace his baptism again.

 

That's true, but because of their RCC background, when they came out they brought much of that Catholic baggage with them. They were Reformers because they tried to "reform" the RCC from within, but failed. They still believed in a form of transubstantiation. The Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation, for example, for all intent and purposes does not differ greatly from transubstantiation. They remained paedobaptists. Calvin set up a state-church in Geneva, much like the RCC had in Rome. There were great similarities as they pulled away from Rome.

This happened mostly under political rule, and remember that in Geneva Calvin was the head of his own church-state. In England which ever King or Queen was in power they persecuted the other religions that were not of their persuasion. A good example is "Bloody Mary," Queen of Tudor," a zealous Catholic. Pope Innocent III ordered a Crusade against the Albigenses at the same time that he went after the Muslims. But the Albigenses were peace-loving believers who kept to themselves. They believed in the Great Commission (one sin), and baptized adults (another sin). For those two great sins, they were persecuted.

Most of these groups held diverse beliefs just like Baptists of today do, and just like the early churches of Paul's day did. There is no doubt a Baptist church today that would accept the Corinthian Church of Paul's day, with all their abuse of the gift of tongues, and their error in other doctrines into their fellowship. Some even denied the resurrection. Also read the differences in the churches that Jesus wrote to in Revelation two and three. Could you honestly fellowship with all seven of those churches? Look carefully at the sins some of them tolerated.

OTOH, the Catholics delighted in taking some churches perhaps like a "Corinthian church" and demonizing the entire movement as being that way. But it was not so.

True enough. He held on to some of the Catholic errors.

I can only accept them as evangelical if they are. But if they preach error, as the Charismatics do, then as a church we can not have united fellowship with them; for "how can two walk together except they be agreed." I agree with your statement about the reformers completely.

 

we can respect and appreciate what calvin/Luther etc did in the sense of 'rediscovering" the truth of saved by grace and faith ALONE, we also need to understand that some of what each taught was NOT biblcal, but that is same for ALL of us here, as none of us are modern day Apostles!

 

The Reformation was a decisive point in history in its attack on the corruption of the RCC. Luther went to Rome and was astonished at what the priests did in the name of Christ in selling indulgences to get out of purgatory, and other such things. The church was corrupt. It was Luther that came to a knowledge of truth.

Note well: The truth of salvation was never rediscovered!
It was never lost.
God has always had his elect in every age since the apostles outside of the RCC. The RCC didn't preserve the truth of God. Bible believing Christians did--Christians that have lived and preserved the truth of God throughout all ages. Catholics have tried to destroy the Bible; destroy true Christianity; wipe it out; etc. They have the blood of martyrs on their hands. But all throughout history God has preserved those that are his. They have been called by different names. They have been slandered, mocked, scorned, beaten, persecuted, demeaned, but never stamped out entirely. The Bible, and the gospel have never been completely destroyed. And they never will. That is a promise of God.

 

I meant that the true Gospel was not being taught by the RCC , nor by many others, but you are true in the afct that God ALWAYS preserves a faithful remant, see Elijah and Baal!