sacrifice in the 1000-year of peace?

[Red33]

i've posted enough of my position, and enough links to scholars and reformers who see this MODEL as the REAL structure of The Bible.

since coming to see these things, i have ZERO intention of being drawn back into convoluted contrived theories that have been clearly debunked.

see ya

You have done nothing of the sort concerning this passage in (Eph 6:10-18). You are lying and being dishonest and that's is deception and also sin.

I am calling you out on it, YOU ARE LYING not just to me and others but also to the Holy Spirit that knows the truth. We can't lie to the Holy Spirit and think for a moment that we can get away with it. This is not an issue as some believe of, 'I believe this and you believe that so why can't we agree to disagree and just get along' That's foolishness and it comes from those that do not know the scriptures or have the leaven of doubt sown in their heart.

The only thing that you have debunked is your own authority to understand with a sound mind what the scriptures teach concerning end time events and how they apply to Israel and the church. That is a major problem that will eventually lead to your downfall, because Satan will take advantage of this and supernaturally destroy your capacity for grace and truth.

 

[zone]

As for the questions, it demonstrates why God would allow Israel the opportunity to accept Messiah and endure the 70th week so to begin the Millennial kingdom, knowing they would reject it. It is what He's always done with his people, place before them Blessings and Cursings, so they might choose, and not accuse God when they suffer the promised cursings. In rejecting Jesus, the nation of Israel suffered the final curse, being torn completely from the Land and forced to wander the earth.

God, throughout the ages has continued the same pattern: Israel rejects Him, He punishes them, they call out to Him in their distress, God answers and restores them. In the end-times, the pattern holds, not only spiritually, but in our reality.

endof...
the 70th Week was Fulfilled...there's no 7 years or future mystery reign for the "jews to get right with God"

70th WEEK FULFILLED.

there are no more opportunities after The Second Advent...in fact, after the last plagues are poured out, God no longer says "and they repented not..." that time is over.

 

[zone]

You have done nothing of the sort concerning this passage in (Eph 6:10-18). You are lying and being dishonest and that's is deception and also sin.

I am calling you out on it, YOU ARE LYING not just to me and others but also to the Holy Spirit that knows the truth. We can't lie to the Holy Spirit and think for a moment that we can get away with it. This is not an issue as some believe of, 'I believe this and you believe that so why can't we agree to disagree and just get along' That's foolishness and it comes from those that do not know the scriptures or have the leaven of doubt sown in their heart.

The only thing that you have debunked is your own authority to understand with a sound mind what the scriptures teach concerning end time events and how they apply to Israel and the church. That is a major problem that will eventually lead to your downfall, because Satan will take advantage of this and supernaturally destroy your capacity for grace and truth.

i forgive you for this.
i still love you.

 

[Red33]

If you make it clear that you do not want to talk or give your understanding of (Eph 6:10-18) that would be okay and the matter would be dropped. But, that is not what you expressed nor did you want to give an explanation in defense of your own doctrine about the binding of Satan. I am being a stickler on this matter on purpose and deliberately to nail you done on some things that you like to overlook or give no credence to. That is not how we are to treat the scriptures if we are going to arrive at the truth. I am as stubborn as you are when it comes to these matters and you better come up with something that can explain (Eph 6) for starters in relationship to Satan being bound instead of pawning it off to some guy on the internet. So stop lying.

 

[Scotth1960]

Before you gave an answer maybe it is good to read Ezekiel 40-46. And when I read this part: there is something interesting because: we can read about the new temple made by God. In Chapter 43 we can read the Shekina is coming back into the temple (vs5).

Now the interesting part: In Ezek 43:13-- it seems that the Priest offering ( and service) what was kept in the OT is coming back here. (See 44:1-27

Why is this interesting: because we know that Jesus is the fulfil of the offering. We can see too, that some feasts are coming back too (see chapter 45)

Well.. when you read this all.. and are thinking about it. What do you think about this?

Dear Dutch44. I would suggest you go online to GOOGLE from Amazon.com and order the volume of the ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. I believe it's volume 13 or 14, but I'm not sure. My own personal library is lacking the volume on Ezekiel, or I would quote from this book series edited by Thomas Oden. This is the best series that I know of in English language that has a commentary on the OT and NT Scriptures from the Ancient Church Fathers in the English language translations. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington March 2011 AD

 

[zone]

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/20699-dispensationalism-2.html#post398473 << click...#38.

 

[Red33]

2. The binding of Satan (Revelation 20:1-3)

To understand what John wants to convey with this vision, we first must look to other NT texts related to the binding of Satan. He was initially defeated by Jesus in the desert (Matt. 4:1-11). Afterwards, he suffered defeat after defeat during Christ’s ministry. To those who accused Jesus of driving out demons by Beelzebub’s (= Satan’s) power; He answered that it was actually by God’s power that he drove them out, and asked: "how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house" (Matt 12:29). It should be pointed out that the Greek verb deö, to bind, here translated "ties up" is the very same verb used of Satan’s binding in Rev 20. Those who object that Satan is still struggling to carry out his deceptive work (e.g., 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 3:15; 11:3f, 13-15) overlook that the binding implies a restriction, not total neutralization. For example, the very same verb (deö) is employed of John the Baptist’s binding by Herod (Matt. 14:3), which nevertheless didn’t prevent John from sending his disciples to Jesus (Matt. 11:1-7). Another example of this verb used to depict a relative restriction is found in Romans 7: 2 , "For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to [her] husband as long as he lives."

Jesus massive atack against Satan’s kingdom is stressed in many NT passages. For example, Jesus’ remarked that "the gates of Hades" would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18). The image is that of a city (Hades) besieged by an adversary (the Church) strong enough to throw down the city’s gate, thus indicating the offensive power of God’s people. The Lord declared "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" in connection with the mission of the 72 (Luke 10:18, cf. Rev 12:9!). Similarly we read: "now the prince of this world will be driven out"; "the prince of this world now stands condemned"; he has no hold on Jesus (John 12:31; 16:11; 14:30).

Paul asserted that in his ascension, Christ "led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men" (Eph 4:8, quoting Ps 68:18); "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Col 2:15). The decisive battle was, then, already won at the cross, as also Hebrews reminds us: "he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy (katargesei, "render powerless") him who holds the power of death –that is, the devil" (Heb 2:14).

Thus, the uniform teaching of the NT is that the decisive victory over Satan was won at Christ’s FIRST COMING; it was then that Satan was bound.

The Thousand Years of Revelation 20

They won't touch (Eph 6:10-18) (neither will you) because if they had to include it as part of the whole counsel of God that deals with the subject at hand, it would repudiate their findings and they would have to regroup or have to find some way to rationalize or spiritualize that passage or even worse make it obsolete or an uninspired text that was just Paul's opinion that carried no weight. But instead of doing all that work they just neglect it and when it is brought up they ignore it, just like you do. That is handling the word of God deceitfully (2Cor 4:2).

Are you ready to tackle (Eph 6:10-18) and explain what it has to do with Satan being bound? If you are right, the text in this passage should support your claims concerning Satan being bound and not repudiate them. The author of that article is not being honest and neglects one of the most important passages of scripture on the subject.

 

[zone]

They won't touch (Eph 6:10-18) (neither will you) because if they had to include it as part of the whole counsel of God that deals with the subject at hand, it would repudiate their findings and they would have to regroup or have to find some way to rationalize or spiritualize that passage or even worse make it obsolete or an uninspired text that was just Paul's opinion that carried no weight. But instead of doing all that work they just neglect it and when it is brought up they ignore it, just like you do. That is handling the word of God deceitfully (2Cor 4:2).

Are you ready to tackle (Eph 6:10-18) and explain what it has to do with Satan being bound? If you are right, the text in this passage should support your claims concerning Satan being bound and not repudiate them. The author of that article is not being honest and neglects one of the most important passages of scripture on the subject.

THAT'S IT?
They won't touch (Eph 6:10-18)?

THAT'S ALL YOU GOT?
you got NOTHING.

 

[VW]

The nations are perfectly rational and holy and even Godly. Yeah, right. The devil is not bound, not until Jesus returns to rule and reign for 1000 years. At that time, the lamb will lay down with the lion, and the child will play with the adder.

Seriously twisted doctrine that says that there is no 1000 year reign of Christ.

 

[Red33]

THAT'S IT?
They won't touch (Eph 6:10-18)?

THAT'S ALL YOU GOT?
you got NOTHING.

The scripture (singular) can not be broken (to loosen or break - Jn 10:35), you can't add or take away from scripture either (Prov 30:6)...

6 Add not to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.

If we don't live by every word that comes from the mouth of God (written and revealed) then we are taking away from scripture and adding our own understanding to it. If we offend in one part of the law we offend the whole law (Jm 2:10,11). There is only one faith (pistis) that comes from scripture (God's word- Rom 10:17) and we must have unity in that faith (Eph 4:5,13). To exclude (Eph 6:10-18) is breaking up the scripture and promoting disunity in the faith. When the devil sees this happening he takes advantage and brings in confusion, division and strife among the believers to keep them from having unity in the faith and unity in the Spirit to reveal one Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 4:3, 1Cor 8:6).

I do have something, because EVERY word of God is precious and should be considered without neglect or partiality. Some would like to take (Eph 6:10-18) and twist it right out of the scriptures.

Zone, when we are commanded to live by every word from God's mouth in (Mt 4:4) do you consider (Eph 6:10-18) as part of that every word? Have you studied that passage of scripture or do you avoid and neglect it because of the doctrine, the instruction in righteousness, the reproof and the correction it might give to you in your understanding of scripture?

 

[zone]

The scripture (singular) can not be broken (to loosen or break - Jn 10:35), you can't add or take away from scripture either (Prov 30:6)...

6 Add not to His words, lest He reprove you, and you be found a liar.

If we don't live by every word that comes from the mouth of God (written and revealed) then we are taking away from scripture and adding our own understanding to it. If we offend in one part of the law we offend the whole law (Jm 2:10,11). There is only one faith (pistis) that comes from scripture (God's word- Rom 10:17) and we must have unity in that faith (Eph 4:5,13). To exclude (Eph 6:10-18) is breaking up the scripture and promoting disunity in the faith. When the devil sees this happening he takes advantage and brings in confusion, division and strife among the believers to keep them from having unity in the faith and unity in the Spirit to reveal one Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 4:3, 1Cor 8:6).

I do have something, because EVERY word of God is precious and should be considered without neglect or partiality. Some would like to take (Eph 6:10-18) and twist it right out of the scriptures.

Zone, when we are commanded to live by every word from God's mouth in (Mt 4:4) do you consider (Eph 6:10-18) as part of that every word? Have you studied that passage of scripture or do you avoid and neglect it because of the doctrine, the instruction in righteousness, the reproof and the correction it might give to you in your understanding of scripture?

I'M WEARY OF YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER YOU MAY HAVE BELIEVED ERROR.
tired of it, it's getting boring and i would rather converse with people who are joyful having discovering what i did (its been there all along).

if you're not among that group, fine. edify your friends with a fake rapture scenario and send your money to Mystery Babylon.

but i will answer this HUGE ALL IMPORTANT EPHESIANS VERSE for you (not that it'll change anything).

after this, go and be quiet someplace and see if you are possibly wrong (that'll take more than a hour or two);

or at least stop haranguing me with single verses here and there to distract from the reality that the ENTIRE DISPENSATIONALIST MODEL is an house built on SAND.

i've fought hard and been willing to spend many sleepless nights to be free of this horribly damaging system and i'm not going to waste any more energy on playing ping-pong with single verses with an unabashed hyper-dispensationalist who can not admit he may have believed false doctrine.

there's nothing wrong with being wrong: the problem is in never facing the possibility. DENIAL isn't a river in Egypt. "DECEIVED? ME? NEVER!" "i believe EVERY WORD my pastor says...it's even in MY FOOTNOTES"

the WHOLE DISPENSATIONAL SYSTEM IS CORRUPT, the fruit is bad. the tree must be struck AT THE ROOT.


Ephesians 6

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

tell me Red....is it "in the evil day" you're having a hissy fit over? it means in times of trouble and when evil is all around.

EVIL​

4190. ponéros​

toilsome, bad​

Original Word: &#960;&#959;&#957;&#951;&#961;&#972;&#962;, &#940;, &#972;&#957;
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: ponéros
Phonetic Spelling: (pon-ay-ros')
Short Definition: evil, bad, wicked
Definition: evil, bad, wicked, malicious, slothful.

Word Origin
from poneó (to toil)
Definition
toilsome, bad
NASB Word Usage
bad (5), crimes (1), envious (1), envy* (1), evil (50), evil one (5), evil things (1), malignant (1), more evil (1), more wicked (1), vicious (1), wicked (6), wicked man (1), wicked things (1), worthless (1).


4190 pon&#275;rós (an adjective which is also used substantively, derived from 4192 /pónos, "pain, laborious trouble") &#8211; properly, pain-ridden, emphasizing the inevitable agonies (misery) that always go with evil.

DAY​

2250. hémera​

day​

Original Word: &#7969;&#956;&#941;&#961;&#945;, &#945;&#962;, &#7969;
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hémera
Phonetic Spelling: (hay-mer'-ah)
Short Definition: a day
Definition: a day, the period from sunrise to sunset.

Word Origin
a prim. word
Definition
day
NASB Word Usage
always* (1), court (1), daily* (10), day (207), day's (1), day...another (1), daybreak (1), days (148), daytime (2), midday* (1), time (12), years (4).


or is it: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

this is your proof that (in spite of words from the lips of Jesus that the Kingdom of God HAD come upon those in His Day) satan isn't bound up with duct tape, shackled to a floor and unable to move a muscle?

what a waste of time and energy.

try approaching your dispensational house of cards from another angle for awhile: remember that if one of it's foundational stone must come down, the whole house comes down.

do what you want.

i want to talk to people who see the Two Age, Covenant Theological Model in the Bible - JOY! SIMPLICITY!

btw: STOP CALLING ME A LIAR. i'm tired of it, and if you have intergrity you will want to apologize later. why make it worse?

 

[VW]

Hmmmm..............so, if satan is bound, as Jesus has come already, and there is no 1000 year reign in which satan is bound; then WHO OR WHAT are we wrestling against?

The kingdom of darkness is alive and well, and is deceiving the masses, the nations, even now.

 

[Devolution]

i want to talk to people who see the Two Age, Covenant Theological Model in the Bible - JOY! SIMPLICITY!

btw: STOP CALLING ME A LIAR. i'm tired of it, and if you have intergrity you will want to apologize later. why make it worse?

ERROR...there is NO covenant theological model in the bible.
AT LAST !!! ...THE MEN FOLLOWED AND PROMOTED BY A CERTAIN SOMEONE....found.

These are not my words, i have minimal knowledge of this group/theory....so far.

I have merely come across one argument against covenant theology. But within are points to help us understand the workings of this THEORY that has NO biblical authority whatsoever. Now i have found the MEN pushing this unbiblical THEORY....i suggest we all become acquainted with this dangerous doctrine of men that denies 3/4 of scripture....SIMPLE indeed....3/4 of scripture ignored...no wonder its simple !!!!

THE SUPPOSED TWO COVENANTS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
"Little reference has been made so far to the essential error of Covenant Theology. It may be mentioned at this point only as it bears on human responsibility before God. The theological terms, Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, do not occur in Scripture. If they are to be sustained it must be wholly apart from Biblical authority.
What is known as Covenant Theology builds its structure on these two covenants and is, at least, a recognition - though inadequate - of the truth that the creature has responsibility toward his Creator. Covenant Theology has Cocceius (1603-1669) as its chief exponent. "He taught that before the Fall, as much as after it, the relation between God and man was a covenant. The first was a ‘Covenant of Works.’ For this was substituted, after the Fall, the ‘Covenant of Grace’, to fulfil which the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., V, 938). (IV, 156)



COVENANT THEOLOGY - A HUMAN INVENTION
"Upon this human invention of two covenants Reformed Theology has largely been constructed. It sees the empirical truth that God can forgive sinners only by that freedom which is secured by the sacrifice of His Son - anticipated in the old order and realized in the new - but that theology utterly fails to discern the purposes for the ages; the varying relationships to God of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church, with the distinctive, consistent human obligations which arise directly and unavoidably from the nature of each specific relationship to God." (IV, 156)


COVENANT THEOLOGY - A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING
"A theology which penetrates no further into Scripture than to discover that in all ages God is immutable in His grace toward penitent sinners, and constructs the idea of a universal Church continuing through the ages, on the one truth of immutable grace, is not only disregarding vast spheres of revelation but is reaping the unavoidable confusion and misdirection which part-truth engenders. The outworking of divine grace is not standardized, though the Covenant idea of theology would make it so; and as certainly as God's dealings with man are not standardized, in the same manner the entire field of the corresponding human obligation in daily life is not run into a mold of human idealism." (IV, 156-157)



COVENANT THEOLOGY IGNORES JUDAISTIC THEOLOGY
"Judaism has its field of theology with its soteriology and its eschatology. That these factors of a system which occupies three-fourths of the Sacred Text are unrecognized and ignored by theologians does not demonstrate their nonexistence, nor does it prove their unimportance. A Covenant Theology engenders the notion that there is but one soteriology and one eschatology, and that ecclesiology, such as it is conceived to be, extends from the Garden of Eden to the Great White Throne. The insuperable problems in exegesis which such fanciful suppositions create are easily disposed of by ignoring them." (IV, 248)


COVENANT THEOLOGY - BOUND BY TRADITIONS
"On the other hand, Scripture is harmonized and its message clarified when two divinely appointed systems - Judaism and Christianity - are recognized, and their complete and distinctive characters are observed. No matter how orthodox they may be in matters of inspiration, the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, and the efficacy of His death, Covenant theologians have not been forward in Bible exposition. This great field of service has been and is now occupied by those who distinguish things which differ, who, though giving close attention to all that has been written, are bound by no theological traditions whatever." (IV, 248)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO DISTINGUISH THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL
"Israel has never been the Church, is not the Church, nor will she ever be the Church. A form of Covenant Theology which would thread all of Jehovah's purposes and undertakings upon His one attribute of grace could hardly avoid confusion of mind in matters related to His varied objectives. Covenant Theology, in consistency with its man-made premise, asserts its inventions respecting an Old Testament Church, which, it is claimed, is an integral part of the New Testament Church and on the ground that, since God's grace is one unchanging attribute, its accomplishments must be the realization of one standard ideal. The Covenant theory does retain Israel as such to the time of Christ's death. The Church is thought to be a spiritual remnant within Israel to whom all Old Testament blessings are granted, and the nation as such is allowed to inherit the cursings." (IV, 311)
"The fact that the Bible recognizes an Israel within the nation itself - sometimes termed the remnant - has been seized upon by Covenant theologians as a ground for their contention that the Church is the true Israel of the Old Testament. The true text hardly sustains this idea." (IV, 312)
"The introduction of an age as an intercalation into the midst of the predicted ongoing Jewish and Gentile programs, and the new heavenly purpose which characterizes this age, cannot be made to conform to a supposed single covenant. Thus it is seen how, to maintain the basic idea of a Covenant theology, much that is vital in the whole divine purpose must be renounced and excluded in the interest of that which at best is only a theory; and among the neglected truths is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." (V, 233-234)


COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION
"As traced by the so-called Covenant theologians, the death of Christ is given a place of large significance but His resurrection is accounted as little more than something for His own personal convenience, His necessary return from the sphere of death back to the place which He occupied before. In other words, as viewed by Covenant theologians, there is practically no doctrinal significance to Christ's resurrection.
That Christ by resurrection became what in Himself He had not been before - the federal Head of a wholly new order of beings and these the primary divine objective, as this is set forth in the New Testament - cannot be incorporated into a system of which the cherished and distinctive feature is one unchangeable divine purpose from Adam to the end of time." (V, 231)
"If as has been said Covenant Theology ignores the doctrinal aspects of the resurrection of Christ, it is due to the fact that according to that idealism the Church is not a new creation with its headship in the ascended Christ, but has existed under a supposed uniform covenant from the beginning of human history. Thus for that system the great reality of a heavenly purpose peculiar to this dispensation is ruled out completely.
The doctrinal aspects of Christ's ascension and present ministry in heaven mean but little to those who are committed to the theory of an unchanging covenant. According to this assumption, the Church obtained without a headship in heaven, even before Christ came; therefore, the inauguration of that headship as something sprung out of His resurrection could not be of any great moment.
The Covenant theory cannot be broadened to allow for Christ's new priesthood in heaven, nor for His immeasurable ministry as Advocate, and for the same reason. Therefore, all this incalculable truth is not included in their system by Covenant theologians." (V, 232-233)
"However, in spite of an almost universal influence of the Covenant theory upon theological thought, the resurrection of Christ is, when seen in its true Biblical setting, properly recognized as the very ground of all the purpose of this age and the basis upon which the new positions and possessions of those in Christ are made to rest. There is a wide doctrinal difference between those who see no special consequence in Christ's resurrection and those who see its momentous significance." (V, 234)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MINISTRIES OF THE SPIRIT
"The advent of the Spirit into the world and His residence in the world cannot be made to conform doctrinally to an unchangeable covenant-theory. Wherever this theory is stressed, there must go along with it a neglect of the most vital truths respecting the present age-characterizing ministries of the Spirit. The same reason may be assigned for this neglect, namely, that if the Church existed and progressed in Old Testament times apart from these ministries of the Spirit, they cannot be of vital import in the present dispensation.
The disannulling of all Jewish purposes and distinctive features for an age renders a continuous-covenant conception objectionable. The Old Testament history leads on to its consummation in a glorious earthly kingdom in which the elect nation, Israel , will realize her covenants as promises fulfilled. It is, therefore, disruptive to a one-covenant theory to the last degree that a situation should be set up as it has been in this age in which it is said respecting Jew and Gentile that "there is no difference" (Rom. 3:9; 10:12)." (V, 233)



COVENANT THEOLOGY - THE CRITICAL ERROR FOR THE CHRISTIAN’S RULE OF LIFE
"Covenantism, which has molded the major theological concepts for many generations, recognizes no distinction as to ages, therefore can allow for no distinctions between law and grace. This dominating attitude of Covenantism must account for the utter neglect of life-truth in all their works of theology.
No more representative theological dictum from the Covenant viewpoint has been formed than the Westminster Confession of Faith, which valuable and important document recognizes life truth only to the point of imposing the Ten Commandments on Christians as their sole obligation, and in spite of the teachings of the New Testament which assert that the law was never given to Gentiles or Christians, and that the latter has been saved and delivered from it (cf. John 1:16-17; Acts 15:23-29; Rom. 6:14; 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:11, 13; Gal. 3:23-25).
Let it be restated that the Holy Spirit can be depended upon to enable the believer only as the believer’s life and effort are conformed to God’s will and plan for him in this age." (VI, 167)




COVENANT THEOLOGY SPIRITUALIZES CHRIST’S RETURN
"A phenomenon exists, namely, that men who are conscientious and meticulous to observe the exact teaching of the Scripture in the fields of inspiration and the divine character of the Sacred Text, the ruin of the race through Adam's sin, the Deity and Saviourhood of Christ, are found introducing methods of spiritualizing and vamping the clear declarations of the Bible in the one field of Eschatology.
So much has this tendency prevailed in the past two or three centuries that, as respecting theologians, they are almost wholly of this bold class. So great an effect calls for an adequate cause, and the cause is not difficult to identify. When one is bound to a man-made covenant theory there is no room within that assumption for a restoration of Israel, that nation with all her earthly covenants and glory having been merged into the Church. There is but one logical consummation - that advanced by Whitby with all its reckless disregard for the Biblical testimony, namely, that a hypothetical grace covenant will eventuate in a transformed social order, and not by the power of the returning Messiah but by the preaching of the gospel.
In the present time there are those who, misapprehending the prediction that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world (Matt. 24:14), assert that Christ cannot return until the missionary enterprise has reached to all the inhabited earth, not recognizing that the passage in question is found in a context belonging to the future great tribulation, and that because of the unending cycle of birth and death there could not be a set time in this age when the missionary enterprise would be complete." (V, 282)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTER OF THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
"Though the kingdom occupies so large a place in the Sacred Text, the theme of the kingdom has been more misunderstood and its terminology more misapplied than any other one subject in the Bible. This is directly due to the failure, so inherent and far-reaching in Covenant Theology, to recognize the dispensational aspect of divine revelation. Truth respecting the Messianic expectation as that is set forth in the Old Testament does not imply that the kingdom is the Church, nor does the New Testament, with its objectives centered in heaven, teach that the Church is the kingdom.
Similarly, the earthly kingdom that according to the Scriptures had its origin in the covenant made to David, which is mundane and literal in its original form, and equally as mundane and literal in uncounted references to it in all subsequent Scriptures which trace it on to its consummation, is by theological legerdemain metamorphosed into a spiritual monstrosity in which an absent King seated on His Father's throne in heaven is accepted in lieu of the theocratic monarch of David's line seated on David's throne in Jerusalem.
Again, through careless inattention many modern writers refer to the kingdom of heaven as though it were heaven, and is spit of the absurdities and contradictions which arise when these terms are thus confused." (V, 315)



A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM GOSPEL AND THE GOSPEL OF GRACE
"Strong objection is offered by Covenant theologians to a distinction between the gospel of the kingdom as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Disciples, and the Pauline gospel of the grace of God. One of them states that to make such a distinction is unfortunate, and dangerous.
He with others contends that the kingdom gospel is identical with the gospel of divine Grace. Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the grace gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (Luke 18:31-34)." (VII, 176)



Tsk,tsk,tsk. Now i can learn about a certain persons beliefs, which does not come from personal searching in spirit and truth, but from a made up theory devised by men.

 

[VW]

ERROR...there is NO covenant theological model in the bible.
AT LAST !!! ...THE MEN FOLLOWED AND PROMOTED BY A CERTAIN SOMEONE....found.

These are not my words, i have minimal knowledge of this group/theory....so far.

I have merely come across one argument against covenant theology. But within are points to help us understand the workings of this THEORY that has NO biblical authority whatsoever. Now i have found the MEN pushing this unbiblical THEORY....i suggest we all become acquainted with this dangerous doctrine of men that denies 3/4 of scripture....SIMPLE indeed....3/4 of scripture ignored...no wonder its simple !!!!

THE SUPPOSED TWO COVENANTS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
"Little reference has been made so far to the essential error of Covenant Theology. It may be mentioned at this point only as it bears on human responsibility before God. The theological terms, Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, do not occur in Scripture. If they are to be sustained it must be wholly apart from Biblical authority.
What is known as Covenant Theology builds its structure on these two covenants and is, at least, a recognition - though inadequate - of the truth that the creature has responsibility toward his Creator. Covenant Theology has Cocceius (1603-1669) as its chief exponent. "He taught that before the Fall, as much as after it, the relation between God and man was a covenant. The first was a ‘Covenant of Works.’ For this was substituted, after the Fall, the ‘Covenant of Grace’, to fulfil which the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., V, 938). (IV, 156)



COVENANT THEOLOGY - A HUMAN INVENTION
"Upon this human invention of two covenants Reformed Theology has largely been constructed. It sees the empirical truth that God can forgive sinners only by that freedom which is secured by the sacrifice of His Son - anticipated in the old order and realized in the new - but that theology utterly fails to discern the purposes for the ages; the varying relationships to God of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church, with the distinctive, consistent human obligations which arise directly and unavoidably from the nature of each specific relationship to God." (IV, 156)


COVENANT THEOLOGY - A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING
"A theology which penetrates no further into Scripture than to discover that in all ages God is immutable in His grace toward penitent sinners, and constructs the idea of a universal Church continuing through the ages, on the one truth of immutable grace, is not only disregarding vast spheres of revelation but is reaping the unavoidable confusion and misdirection which part-truth engenders. The outworking of divine grace is not standardized, though the Covenant idea of theology would make it so; and as certainly as God's dealings with man are not standardized, in the same manner the entire field of the corresponding human obligation in daily life is not run into a mold of human idealism." (IV, 156-157)



COVENANT THEOLOGY IGNORES JUDAISTIC THEOLOGY
"Judaism has its field of theology with its soteriology and its eschatology. That these factors of a system which occupies three-fourths of the Sacred Text are unrecognized and ignored by theologians does not demonstrate their nonexistence, nor does it prove their unimportance. A Covenant Theology engenders the notion that there is but one soteriology and one eschatology, and that ecclesiology, such as it is conceived to be, extends from the Garden of Eden to the Great White Throne. The insuperable problems in exegesis which such fanciful suppositions create are easily disposed of by ignoring them." (IV, 248)


COVENANT THEOLOGY - BOUND BY TRADITIONS
"On the other hand, Scripture is harmonized and its message clarified when two divinely appointed systems - Judaism and Christianity - are recognized, and their complete and distinctive characters are observed. No matter how orthodox they may be in matters of inspiration, the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, and the efficacy of His death, Covenant theologians have not been forward in Bible exposition. This great field of service has been and is now occupied by those who distinguish things which differ, who, though giving close attention to all that has been written, are bound by no theological traditions whatever." (IV, 248)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO DISTINGUISH THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL
"Israel has never been the Church, is not the Church, nor will she ever be the Church. A form of Covenant Theology which would thread all of Jehovah's purposes and undertakings upon His one attribute of grace could hardly avoid confusion of mind in matters related to His varied objectives. Covenant Theology, in consistency with its man-made premise, asserts its inventions respecting an Old Testament Church, which, it is claimed, is an integral part of the New Testament Church and on the ground that, since God's grace is one unchanging attribute, its accomplishments must be the realization of one standard ideal. The Covenant theory does retain Israel as such to the time of Christ's death. The Church is thought to be a spiritual remnant within Israel to whom all Old Testament blessings are granted, and the nation as such is allowed to inherit the cursings." (IV, 311)
"The fact that the Bible recognizes an Israel within the nation itself - sometimes termed the remnant - has been seized upon by Covenant theologians as a ground for their contention that the Church is the true Israel of the Old Testament. The true text hardly sustains this idea." (IV, 312)
"The introduction of an age as an intercalation into the midst of the predicted ongoing Jewish and Gentile programs, and the new heavenly purpose which characterizes this age, cannot be made to conform to a supposed single covenant. Thus it is seen how, to maintain the basic idea of a Covenant theology, much that is vital in the whole divine purpose must be renounced and excluded in the interest of that which at best is only a theory; and among the neglected truths is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." (V, 233-234)


COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION
"As traced by the so-called Covenant theologians, the death of Christ is given a place of large significance but His resurrection is accounted as little more than something for His own personal convenience, His necessary return from the sphere of death back to the place which He occupied before. In other words, as viewed by Covenant theologians, there is practically no doctrinal significance to Christ's resurrection.
That Christ by resurrection became what in Himself He had not been before - the federal Head of a wholly new order of beings and these the primary divine objective, as this is set forth in the New Testament - cannot be incorporated into a system of which the cherished and distinctive feature is one unchangeable divine purpose from Adam to the end of time." (V, 231)
"If as has been said Covenant Theology ignores the doctrinal aspects of the resurrection of Christ, it is due to the fact that according to that idealism the Church is not a new creation with its headship in the ascended Christ, but has existed under a supposed uniform covenant from the beginning of human history. Thus for that system the great reality of a heavenly purpose peculiar to this dispensation is ruled out completely.
The doctrinal aspects of Christ's ascension and present ministry in heaven mean but little to those who are committed to the theory of an unchanging covenant. According to this assumption, the Church obtained without a headship in heaven, even before Christ came; therefore, the inauguration of that headship as something sprung out of His resurrection could not be of any great moment.
The Covenant theory cannot be broadened to allow for Christ's new priesthood in heaven, nor for His immeasurable ministry as Advocate, and for the same reason. Therefore, all this incalculable truth is not included in their system by Covenant theologians." (V, 232-233)
"However, in spite of an almost universal influence of the Covenant theory upon theological thought, the resurrection of Christ is, when seen in its true Biblical setting, properly recognized as the very ground of all the purpose of this age and the basis upon which the new positions and possessions of those in Christ are made to rest. There is a wide doctrinal difference between those who see no special consequence in Christ's resurrection and those who see its momentous significance." (V, 234)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MINISTRIES OF THE SPIRIT
"The advent of the Spirit into the world and His residence in the world cannot be made to conform doctrinally to an unchangeable covenant-theory. Wherever this theory is stressed, there must go along with it a neglect of the most vital truths respecting the present age-characterizing ministries of the Spirit. The same reason may be assigned for this neglect, namely, that if the Church existed and progressed in Old Testament times apart from these ministries of the Spirit, they cannot be of vital import in the present dispensation.
The disannulling of all Jewish purposes and distinctive features for an age renders a continuous-covenant conception objectionable. The Old Testament history leads on to its consummation in a glorious earthly kingdom in which the elect nation, Israel , will realize her covenants as promises fulfilled. It is, therefore, disruptive to a one-covenant theory to the last degree that a situation should be set up as it has been in this age in which it is said respecting Jew and Gentile that "there is no difference" (Rom. 3:9; 10:12)." (V, 233)



COVENANT THEOLOGY - THE CRITICAL ERROR FOR THE CHRISTIAN’S RULE OF LIFE
"Covenantism, which has molded the major theological concepts for many generations, recognizes no distinction as to ages, therefore can allow for no distinctions between law and grace. This dominating attitude of Covenantism must account for the utter neglect of life-truth in all their works of theology.
No more representative theological dictum from the Covenant viewpoint has been formed than the Westminster Confession of Faith, which valuable and important document recognizes life truth only to the point of imposing the Ten Commandments on Christians as their sole obligation, and in spite of the teachings of the New Testament which assert that the law was never given to Gentiles or Christians, and that the latter has been saved and delivered from it (cf. John 1:16-17; Acts 15:23-29; Rom. 6:14; 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:11, 13; Gal. 3:23-25).
Let it be restated that the Holy Spirit can be depended upon to enable the believer only as the believer’s life and effort are conformed to God’s will and plan for him in this age." (VI, 167)




COVENANT THEOLOGY SPIRITUALIZES CHRIST’S RETURN
"A phenomenon exists, namely, that men who are conscientious and meticulous to observe the exact teaching of the Scripture in the fields of inspiration and the divine character of the Sacred Text, the ruin of the race through Adam's sin, the Deity and Saviourhood of Christ, are found introducing methods of spiritualizing and vamping the clear declarations of the Bible in the one field of Eschatology.
So much has this tendency prevailed in the past two or three centuries that, as respecting theologians, they are almost wholly of this bold class. So great an effect calls for an adequate cause, and the cause is not difficult to identify. When one is bound to a man-made covenant theory there is no room within that assumption for a restoration of Israel, that nation with all her earthly covenants and glory having been merged into the Church. There is but one logical consummation - that advanced by Whitby with all its reckless disregard for the Biblical testimony, namely, that a hypothetical grace covenant will eventuate in a transformed social order, and not by the power of the returning Messiah but by the preaching of the gospel.
In the present time there are those who, misapprehending the prediction that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world (Matt. 24:14), assert that Christ cannot return until the missionary enterprise has reached to all the inhabited earth, not recognizing that the passage in question is found in a context belonging to the future great tribulation, and that because of the unending cycle of birth and death there could not be a set time in this age when the missionary enterprise would be complete." (V, 282)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTER OF THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
"Though the kingdom occupies so large a place in the Sacred Text, the theme of the kingdom has been more misunderstood and its terminology more misapplied than any other one subject in the Bible. This is directly due to the failure, so inherent and far-reaching in Covenant Theology, to recognize the dispensational aspect of divine revelation. Truth respecting the Messianic expectation as that is set forth in the Old Testament does not imply that the kingdom is the Church, nor does the New Testament, with its objectives centered in heaven, teach that the Church is the kingdom.
Similarly, the earthly kingdom that according to the Scriptures had its origin in the covenant made to David, which is mundane and literal in its original form, and equally as mundane and literal in uncounted references to it in all subsequent Scriptures which trace it on to its consummation, is by theological legerdemain metamorphosed into a spiritual monstrosity in which an absent King seated on His Father's throne in heaven is accepted in lieu of the theocratic monarch of David's line seated on David's throne in Jerusalem.
Again, through careless inattention many modern writers refer to the kingdom of heaven as though it were heaven, and is spit of the absurdities and contradictions which arise when these terms are thus confused." (V, 315)



A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM GOSPEL AND THE GOSPEL OF GRACE
"Strong objection is offered by Covenant theologians to a distinction between the gospel of the kingdom as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Disciples, and the Pauline gospel of the grace of God. One of them states that to make such a distinction is unfortunate, and dangerous.
He with others contends that the kingdom gospel is identical with the gospel of divine Grace. Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the grace gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (Luke 18:31-34)." (VII, 176)



Tsk,tsk,tsk. Now i can learn about a certain persons beliefs, which does not come from personal searching in spirit and truth, but from a made up theory devised by men.

Hogwash!

The first covenant = Law

The second covenant = God writing His law in our hearts and in our minds, with and by the Holy Spirit.

Only one man could fulfill the first covenant, which made the death of every person a forgone conclusion. That man is Jesus. The only man to every live without sin.

Only one person can fulfill the second convent, which covenant is salvation and eternal live. Christ in us, the hope of glory.

As to dispensations, and denying the thousand year reign of Jesus because people who teach and believe dispensations use this 1000 years as proof of their error in no way invalidates His rule on this earth for 1000 years.

Anyway, if there were not 2 covenants, God would not have said anything about a new covenant. New means different from the one before. If it is the same covenant, then it is not new.

As a point of fact; the first covenant was made with the nation of Israel, only! One must become a member of that nation, and of that nation's religion, in order to be considered under or of that covenant.

 

[zone]

Hmmmm..............so, if satan is bound, as Jesus has come already, and there is no 1000 year reign in which satan is bound; then WHO OR WHAT are we wrestling against?

The kingdom of darkness is alive and well, and is deceiving the masses, the nations, even now.

have you done ANY reading yet AT ALL, VW?
or are you receiving direct dispensational theology from The Holy Spirit?

i'll come back to this later.

 

[zone]

ERROR...there is NO covenant theological model in the bible.
AT LAST !!! ...THE MEN FOLLOWED AND PROMOTED BY A CERTAIN SOMEONE....found.

These are not my words, i have minimal knowledge of this group/theory....so far.

I have merely come across one argument against covenant theology. But within are points to help us understand the workings of this THEORY that has NO biblical authority whatsoever. Now i have found the MEN pushing this unbiblical THEORY....i suggest we all become acquainted with this dangerous doctrine of men that denies 3/4 of scripture....SIMPLE indeed....3/4 of scripture ignored...no wonder its simple !!!!

THE SUPPOSED TWO COVENANTS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
"Little reference has been made so far to the essential error of Covenant Theology. It may be mentioned at this point only as it bears on human responsibility before God. The theological terms, Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace, do not occur in Scripture. If they are to be sustained it must be wholly apart from Biblical authority.
What is known as Covenant Theology builds its structure on these two covenants and is, at least, a recognition - though inadequate - of the truth that the creature has responsibility toward his Creator. Covenant Theology has Cocceius (1603-1669) as its chief exponent. "He taught that before the Fall, as much as after it, the relation between God and man was a covenant. The first was a ‘Covenant of Works.’ For this was substituted, after the Fall, the ‘Covenant of Grace’, to fulfil which the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary" (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., V, 938). (IV, 156)



COVENANT THEOLOGY - A HUMAN INVENTION
"Upon this human invention of two covenants Reformed Theology has largely been constructed. It sees the empirical truth that God can forgive sinners only by that freedom which is secured by the sacrifice of His Son - anticipated in the old order and realized in the new - but that theology utterly fails to discern the purposes for the ages; the varying relationships to God of the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church, with the distinctive, consistent human obligations which arise directly and unavoidably from the nature of each specific relationship to God." (IV, 156)


COVENANT THEOLOGY - A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING
"A theology which penetrates no further into Scripture than to discover that in all ages God is immutable in His grace toward penitent sinners, and constructs the idea of a universal Church continuing through the ages, on the one truth of immutable grace, is not only disregarding vast spheres of revelation but is reaping the unavoidable confusion and misdirection which part-truth engenders. The outworking of divine grace is not standardized, though the Covenant idea of theology would make it so; and as certainly as God's dealings with man are not standardized, in the same manner the entire field of the corresponding human obligation in daily life is not run into a mold of human idealism." (IV, 156-157)



COVENANT THEOLOGY IGNORES JUDAISTIC THEOLOGY
"Judaism has its field of theology with its soteriology and its eschatology. That these factors of a system which occupies three-fourths of the Sacred Text are unrecognized and ignored by theologians does not demonstrate their nonexistence, nor does it prove their unimportance. A Covenant Theology engenders the notion that there is but one soteriology and one eschatology, and that ecclesiology, such as it is conceived to be, extends from the Garden of Eden to the Great White Throne. The insuperable problems in exegesis which such fanciful suppositions create are easily disposed of by ignoring them." (IV, 248)


COVENANT THEOLOGY - BOUND BY TRADITIONS
"On the other hand, Scripture is harmonized and its message clarified when two divinely appointed systems - Judaism and Christianity - are recognized, and their complete and distinctive characters are observed. No matter how orthodox they may be in matters of inspiration, the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, and the efficacy of His death, Covenant theologians have not been forward in Bible exposition. This great field of service has been and is now occupied by those who distinguish things which differ, who, though giving close attention to all that has been written, are bound by no theological traditions whatever." (IV, 248)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO DISTINGUISH THE CHURCH AND ISRAEL
"Israel has never been the Church, is not the Church, nor will she ever be the Church. A form of Covenant Theology which would thread all of Jehovah's purposes and undertakings upon His one attribute of grace could hardly avoid confusion of mind in matters related to His varied objectives. Covenant Theology, in consistency with its man-made premise, asserts its inventions respecting an Old Testament Church, which, it is claimed, is an integral part of the New Testament Church and on the ground that, since God's grace is one unchanging attribute, its accomplishments must be the realization of one standard ideal. The Covenant theory does retain Israel as such to the time of Christ's death. The Church is thought to be a spiritual remnant within Israel to whom all Old Testament blessings are granted, and the nation as such is allowed to inherit the cursings." (IV, 311)
"The fact that the Bible recognizes an Israel within the nation itself - sometimes termed the remnant - has been seized upon by Covenant theologians as a ground for their contention that the Church is the true Israel of the Old Testament. The true text hardly sustains this idea." (IV, 312)
"The introduction of an age as an intercalation into the midst of the predicted ongoing Jewish and Gentile programs, and the new heavenly purpose which characterizes this age, cannot be made to conform to a supposed single covenant. Thus it is seen how, to maintain the basic idea of a Covenant theology, much that is vital in the whole divine purpose must be renounced and excluded in the interest of that which at best is only a theory; and among the neglected truths is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ." (V, 233-234)


COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION
"As traced by the so-called Covenant theologians, the death of Christ is given a place of large significance but His resurrection is accounted as little more than something for His own personal convenience, His necessary return from the sphere of death back to the place which He occupied before. In other words, as viewed by Covenant theologians, there is practically no doctrinal significance to Christ's resurrection.
That Christ by resurrection became what in Himself He had not been before - the federal Head of a wholly new order of beings and these the primary divine objective, as this is set forth in the New Testament - cannot be incorporated into a system of which the cherished and distinctive feature is one unchangeable divine purpose from Adam to the end of time." (V, 231)
"If as has been said Covenant Theology ignores the doctrinal aspects of the resurrection of Christ, it is due to the fact that according to that idealism the Church is not a new creation with its headship in the ascended Christ, but has existed under a supposed uniform covenant from the beginning of human history. Thus for that system the great reality of a heavenly purpose peculiar to this dispensation is ruled out completely.
The doctrinal aspects of Christ's ascension and present ministry in heaven mean but little to those who are committed to the theory of an unchanging covenant. According to this assumption, the Church obtained without a headship in heaven, even before Christ came; therefore, the inauguration of that headship as something sprung out of His resurrection could not be of any great moment.
The Covenant theory cannot be broadened to allow for Christ's new priesthood in heaven, nor for His immeasurable ministry as Advocate, and for the same reason. Therefore, all this incalculable truth is not included in their system by Covenant theologians." (V, 232-233)
"However, in spite of an almost universal influence of the Covenant theory upon theological thought, the resurrection of Christ is, when seen in its true Biblical setting, properly recognized as the very ground of all the purpose of this age and the basis upon which the new positions and possessions of those in Christ are made to rest. There is a wide doctrinal difference between those who see no special consequence in Christ's resurrection and those who see its momentous significance." (V, 234)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE MINISTRIES OF THE SPIRIT
"The advent of the Spirit into the world and His residence in the world cannot be made to conform doctrinally to an unchangeable covenant-theory. Wherever this theory is stressed, there must go along with it a neglect of the most vital truths respecting the present age-characterizing ministries of the Spirit. The same reason may be assigned for this neglect, namely, that if the Church existed and progressed in Old Testament times apart from these ministries of the Spirit, they cannot be of vital import in the present dispensation.
The disannulling of all Jewish purposes and distinctive features for an age renders a continuous-covenant conception objectionable. The Old Testament history leads on to its consummation in a glorious earthly kingdom in which the elect nation, Israel , will realize her covenants as promises fulfilled. It is, therefore, disruptive to a one-covenant theory to the last degree that a situation should be set up as it has been in this age in which it is said respecting Jew and Gentile that "there is no difference" (Rom. 3:9; 10:12)." (V, 233)



COVENANT THEOLOGY - THE CRITICAL ERROR FOR THE CHRISTIAN’S RULE OF LIFE
"Covenantism, which has molded the major theological concepts for many generations, recognizes no distinction as to ages, therefore can allow for no distinctions between law and grace. This dominating attitude of Covenantism must account for the utter neglect of life-truth in all their works of theology.
No more representative theological dictum from the Covenant viewpoint has been formed than the Westminster Confession of Faith, which valuable and important document recognizes life truth only to the point of imposing the Ten Commandments on Christians as their sole obligation, and in spite of the teachings of the New Testament which assert that the law was never given to Gentiles or Christians, and that the latter has been saved and delivered from it (cf. John 1:16-17; Acts 15:23-29; Rom. 6:14; 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:11, 13; Gal. 3:23-25).
Let it be restated that the Holy Spirit can be depended upon to enable the believer only as the believer’s life and effort are conformed to God’s will and plan for him in this age." (VI, 167)




COVENANT THEOLOGY SPIRITUALIZES CHRIST’S RETURN
"A phenomenon exists, namely, that men who are conscientious and meticulous to observe the exact teaching of the Scripture in the fields of inspiration and the divine character of the Sacred Text, the ruin of the race through Adam's sin, the Deity and Saviourhood of Christ, are found introducing methods of spiritualizing and vamping the clear declarations of the Bible in the one field of Eschatology.
So much has this tendency prevailed in the past two or three centuries that, as respecting theologians, they are almost wholly of this bold class. So great an effect calls for an adequate cause, and the cause is not difficult to identify. When one is bound to a man-made covenant theory there is no room within that assumption for a restoration of Israel, that nation with all her earthly covenants and glory having been merged into the Church. There is but one logical consummation - that advanced by Whitby with all its reckless disregard for the Biblical testimony, namely, that a hypothetical grace covenant will eventuate in a transformed social order, and not by the power of the returning Messiah but by the preaching of the gospel.
In the present time there are those who, misapprehending the prediction that the gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the world (Matt. 24:14), assert that Christ cannot return until the missionary enterprise has reached to all the inhabited earth, not recognizing that the passage in question is found in a context belonging to the future great tribulation, and that because of the unending cycle of birth and death there could not be a set time in this age when the missionary enterprise would be complete." (V, 282)



COVENANT THEOLOGY FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE CHARACTER OF THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
"Though the kingdom occupies so large a place in the Sacred Text, the theme of the kingdom has been more misunderstood and its terminology more misapplied than any other one subject in the Bible. This is directly due to the failure, so inherent and far-reaching in Covenant Theology, to recognize the dispensational aspect of divine revelation. Truth respecting the Messianic expectation as that is set forth in the Old Testament does not imply that the kingdom is the Church, nor does the New Testament, with its objectives centered in heaven, teach that the Church is the kingdom.
Similarly, the earthly kingdom that according to the Scriptures had its origin in the covenant made to David, which is mundane and literal in its original form, and equally as mundane and literal in uncounted references to it in all subsequent Scriptures which trace it on to its consummation, is by theological legerdemain metamorphosed into a spiritual monstrosity in which an absent King seated on His Father's throne in heaven is accepted in lieu of the theocratic monarch of David's line seated on David's throne in Jerusalem.
Again, through careless inattention many modern writers refer to the kingdom of heaven as though it were heaven, and is spit of the absurdities and contradictions which arise when these terms are thus confused." (V, 315)



A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE KINGDOM GOSPEL AND THE GOSPEL OF GRACE
"Strong objection is offered by Covenant theologians to a distinction between the gospel of the kingdom as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Disciples, and the Pauline gospel of the grace of God. One of them states that to make such a distinction is unfortunate, and dangerous.
He with others contends that the kingdom gospel is identical with the gospel of divine Grace. Here nevertheless will arise an absurdity which does not deter this type of theologian, namely, that men could preach the grace gospel based as it is on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ when they did not believe Christ would die or be raised again (Luke 18:31-34)." (VII, 176)



Tsk,tsk,tsk. Now i can learn about a certain persons beliefs, which does not come from personal searching in spirit and truth, but from a made up theory devised by men.

you are very very immature, and you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

but i'm glad you barreled ahead in your lust for revenge over your stupid dispensational Scofieldism being exposed.

you got the wrong guys devo. any BABY in Christ can google Covenant theology heresy/false doctrine or whatever you did and get what you got. without even taking ANY time whatsoever to make sure you at least have a CLUE of what you're talking about.

i expect that when this ILL INFORMED AND RASH attempt to save face fails, you'll find another reason to "leave this site" and blame it on someone else.

this post going to another thread. God have mercy on you.

 

[VW]

have you done ANY reading yet AT ALL, VW?
or are you receiving direct dispensational theology from The Holy Spirit?

i'll come back to this later.

I don't believe in dispensations. Never said that I did. You assumed this from my very strong belief in the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ in this world.

Oddly enough, I don't consider what I receive from the Holy Spirit as being theology. To me, theology is a person's attempt to explain God, what He thinks, and why He does what He does. Revelation from the Holy Spirit is simply communication between the believer and God. It is a lot like life from above.

I am distressed at how severely you must twist scripture to maintain what you consider a response to heresy. There have always been deceptions in the church body, from the very first with Ananias and Sapphira believing that they could lie to the Holy Spirit, who struck them dead for their error. These deceptions are not an excuse to twist scripture. Jesus is coming back. There is a time of wrath on the earth. The devil will be bound for a thousand years. There are two resurrections, 1000 years apart. Then comes the judgment, with the new earth and the new heavens, and the new Jerusalem which we are. None of this is symbolic, any more than Jesus coming and bearing our sins is symbolic.

I am sorry that we must disagree so severely on these things, but please stop making fun of my relationship with the Holy Spirit. It is extremely personal to me.

In His love,
vic

 

[Devolution]

you are very very immature, and you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

but i'm glad you barreled ahead in your lust for revenge over your stupid dispensational Scofieldism being exposed.

you got the wrong guys devo. any BABY in Christ can google Covenant theology heresy/false doctrine or whatever you did and get what you got. without even taking ANY time whatsoever to make sure you at least have a CLUE of what you're talking about.

i expect that when this ILL INFORMED AND RASH attempt to save face fails, you'll find another reason to "leave this site" and blame it on someone else.

this post going to another thread. God have mercy on you.

LOL, i have nothing to save face from. You have not been able to answer me with scripture in our "debates", just insults and accusations. Revenge? NO not at all, just trying to work out what school you are from. I reckon i now got you 80% worked out from the above. You're very quick to insult aren't you. It amazes me you believe we follow Schofield whoever he is, even after we told you we don't? I suppose some people just don't understand plain English. Has it not occurred to you that in this world, that there will indeed be similarities between doctrines. Heck ive even seen you agreeing with Catholics. Does that make you Catholic? Hm ? Don't see me accusing you of that now do we. But i wont be stooping to false accusations.

So keep up your little game, it really doesn't bother me what you think. And i think the best way to overcome a scorner, is to ignore the scorner.

Anyway this sounds awfully close to what you preach i must say...of course you mix in here and there your own beliefs to personalize it all, but in the end, what you preach is anothers belief. I was considering leaving yes, but after long thought, there aren't many people who like talking about God in the "real world", so i decided that i might as well stay on and at least get to bridge the subject here on line. And i know you like me so much, that i'd hate to let you down by leaving.

 

[Devolution]

I don't believe in dispensations. Never said that I did. You assumed this from my very strong belief in the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ in this world.

Oddly enough, I don't consider what I receive from the Holy Spirit as being theology. To me, theology is a person's attempt to explain God, what He thinks, and why He does what He does. Revelation from the Holy Spirit is simply communication between the believer and God. It is a lot like life from above.

I am distressed at how severely you must twist scripture to maintain what you consider a response to heresy. There have always been deceptions in the church body, from the very first with Ananias and Sapphira believing that they could lie to the Holy Spirit, who struck them dead for their error. These deceptions are not an excuse to twist scripture. Jesus is coming back. There is a time of wrath on the earth. The devil will be bound for a thousand years. There are two resurrections, 1000 years apart. Then comes the judgment, with the new earth and the new heavens, and the new Jerusalem which we are. None of this is symbolic, any more than Jesus coming and bearing our sins is symbolic.

I am sorry that we must disagree so severely on these things, but please stop making fun of my relationship with the Holy Spirit. It is extremely personal to me.

In His love,
vic

I agree, Jesus will return, mans rule ended, the devil bound for a 1000 years during Christs reign, a small period of uprising when Satan released (final sifting), the 2nd judgment & new earth etc....after all, it is what is written.

Regards
Devolution.

 

[Red33]

Zone,

There is a whole lot more than (Eph 6:10-18), but do you really want me to bring it on? Your zeal is waning. Instead of you being upset about lying or living in a lie about (Eph 6), I'll give you an 'F' on your understanding of what that passage is speaking to the present NT believer.

You have spiritualized (Rev 20:1-3) and concerning the article by Mr Cox, Ill also give him an 'F' on (Col 2:15). He doesn't know what that is referring to when Christ in His ascension spoiled those principalities and powers, but we can get into that if you like.

I gave you a list of passages (and there are many more) that you just ignore, and you have the courage to say, 'Is that all you got'. Now whose being funny? If you like binding the strong-man, then perhaps you will like being strong-armed by a few more passages that reveal the fallacy that you live in concerning the church, Israel, end time events and all those other strange notions you have latched onto.