This is the place to post about self sufficiency or just about anything having to do with lifestyle, like Gardening, Farming, Beekeeping, Canning, Husbandry, Hunting, Fishing, Crafts, Hobbies, Alternative Energy, Wood Working, Off Grid Living.
I think we would all benefit from a definition of terms. Covenant theology is a systematic theology. Dispensationalism is a systematic theology. Systematic theology has a doctrine, build on certain principles that lead a man to interpret the bible according to those principles. Dispensationalism breaks down the world into times or dispensations. Calvinism breaks down the bible by covenants. There appears to be no system to Stewardship and therefore it is not a theology. I listened to the entire video and agree with the idea that we are to be stewards of the mysteries of God. Bro Shifflet does not seem to be advocating for any theology at all. I would further say that any Dispensationalist or Calvinist would agree that we are to be stewards of the mysteries of God, but would interpret that within the confines of their respective systematic theologies. How any of that determines whether the angels in Revelation are actual angels or just messengers I cannot fathom. How stewardship determines whether of not Israel and the church are separate does not make any sense to me at all. Stewardship Theology does not exist as a systematic theology and therefore anybody can claim to be a Stewardship theologist and it means nothing.
PastorMatt, thank you for all you do in giving us a great site free from all of the things many sites allow. It's greatly appreciated. You and the other administrators and moderators are doing an exceptional job. Blessings.
Well, we will have to disagree on these two issues. I agree with the solid fundamentalist preachers and commentators of the past who teach both positions I have stated above. I have been blessed too much by seeing Christ in the OT passages that speak of the Angel of the Lord to let anyone else take them from me.
And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Hm, the second person of the Trinity is called the Angel which redeemed me in this passage (referring specifically to the Angel of the Lord that Jacob encountered) - ouch! Guess I believe God’s Word over a new position.
These are all examples of substitution by assertion. There is no verse that indicates they were called sons and several that indicate they are never called sons.
There are only assertions made by teachers. No verse actually shows this and one passage as shown above that clearly shows He is not.
This shows the power of assertion even in light of clear passages to the contrary. And many of us are guilty of it in some way or another because we just assumed it was so. Until we can deal with all the scriptures as they are written, (not just about angels and God's sons) our doctrine will be lacking.
Is it wrong? Isn't it up to each church to decide? Personally I believe there should be a baptism pretty close to the salvation decision. But, with the level of people's misunderstanding of baptism and what it really means, I can understand the length of time some churches take in allowing such. Is it ridiculous in having people understanding what they are doing?