Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Covenanter

Interpetation of prophecy

Recommended Posts


Thank you for the acknowledgement. I used to be a dispensationalist when I joined this board, but it was hard to remain one when I didn't see it in the bible. As for replacement theology, I can testify to the fact that you indeed do not lean towards it. However, I doubt that Ian, David, or I actually believe there is a replacement. We believe that spiritual Israel has existed from day 1, consisting of all the elect, from Adam to whoever the last person who will be saved by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. During the old covenant, established at mt Sinai, and destroyed at Christ's death, most, but not all, of the spiritual Israel was made up of ethnic Israelites. The covenant with Abraham, however, which promised that he would become the father of many nations through the seed (Jesus Christ) was fulfilled in the New covenant, which brought in the gentiles, and made of two, one new man. So, there was nothing to replace, other than the old covenant.


WHOA! Wait a minute! Did I miss something?
You said above, "The old covenant established at Mt. Sinai...."
But it seems to me that whenever we get into this debate about "Covenant Theology" vs Dispensationalism, the Covenanters always have a tendency to forget a few of the Covenants, and the specific details that accompany them.
1. The Noahic Covenant - in place until Rev. 21
Ge 9:8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
Ge 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
Ge 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
Ge 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

2. The Abrahamic Covenant - unconditional - includes LAND and Physical seed as numerous as the stars, dust, and sand. Also includes the Messianic Line.
If the Covenanter believes that these promises are fulfilled in Christ, and that we are now the benefactors of this covenant, then where, pray tell, is our LAND?
The OT Prophets (all of them) continually point to a FUTURE RESTORATION of a nation to their LAND, and these promises are directed at the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham. The concept of a "spiritual" fulfillment is completely foreign to the OT. Therefore, when the Covenanters say that WE are the recipients of this promise, they can only do so AFTER they shred the OT of its normal, natural, literal meanings, and spiritualize everything away to mean something - anything - other than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

Our "Covenant" brethren always get off track by thinking that Paul's use of Abraham's FAITH is therefore a fulfillment of the entire covenant. They are wrong on several counts:
A. Paul never tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in its entirety. If it is, then Revelation makes no sense whatsoever, because we are right back dealing with the 12 tribes of Israel, the Temple, etc.
B. Paul says we are his SPIRITUAL seed, not his physical seed. Again, the covenant with Abraham was for PHYSICAL seed and LAND.
C. Paul is merely using Abraham as an example of FAITH. Abraham believed what God told him. If you want to know what God told Abraham, read Genesis 15 - it has to do with PHYSICAL PROMISES of children and land!!! Abraham believed what God told him, and accepted it as fact. Paul uses this as an example of how we receive salvation. No works - just faith. Paul never says that we now get all the same promises that Abraham did. It is an example of faith - the kind of faith necessary for NT Salvation.

3. The Mosaic Covenant - a conditional covenant with the NATION of Israel (not the individuals, but the nation), based upon their acceptance of the terms by faith. Deut. 28 is extremely clear that this covenant is a "two-edged sword." If they obey, the Nation of Israel would be blessed. If they broke their end of it, God's curses would come down in buckets.

But wait!!! There's more!!!
4. The Davidic Covenant - an unconditional covenant with David - II Samuel 7
2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Does that verse, and its accompanying passage actually mean what it says?
I believe it does.
THe Covenanter simply denies any LITERAL interpretation of it, and wants us to believe that Christ has ALREADY fulfilled this prophecy, and that Jesus Christ is now currently reigning over the earth RIGHT NOW.
Some Reign!!!
But that is not what the covenant is. It is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant - physical land, physical throne, physical reign - it is all in the passage, and is continued throughout the rest of the OT prophets. Again, their understanding of it was LITERAL and PHYSICAL. Why would we all of a sudden change what they believed because we have not seen it come to pass yet? Is this any reason to deny the plain words of God? Absolutely not. The only other option then is to look for a future fulfillment of these promises.

Now the fur hits the fan:
Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Either that verse means what it says, or God is a liar. It really is that simple.
Somebody earlier said that this verse is fulfilled in Christ. But my friends, the verse does not SAY CHRIST, or Messiah, or anything of that nature. It clearly says DAVID.
Maybe I am crazy, but I am just dumb enough to believe that God is a much better linguist than I am (remember Genesis 11???). I am just dumb enough to believe that God knows how to say what He means in such a way that nobody has to GUESS at what He meant.
I know this - if I want my children to be obedient, I had better give clear instructions.
If I want my employees to produce specific results, I had better give them clear guidelines and instructions.
If I am not clear, then I can only expect catastrophe.

How then, can we have this insane approach to Scripture that starts with the assumption that God didn't know how to tell us what He wanted us to know, and that we are supposed to GUESS at it? How this flies in the face of II Timothy 3:16-17!!! All Scripture is given for DOCTRINE! Well, how can we know what sound doctrine IS if it is not given to us CLEARLY???

Ezekiel 37:24 says plainly and CLEARLY - "DAVID" - not "the son of David", not "the Messiah." It says DAVID. I am therefore FORCED to believe that someday in the future, God will resurrect David, and that David will LITERALLY rule over ISRAEL in the LAND that God promised Abraham.
There are no other options - unless we invent them!!!

5. The new covenant
Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Question: Has this "new covenant" been COMPLETELY fulfilled?
Answer: NO!
If we check the OT references, again we see BEYOND this current church age, and we see a LITERAL, physical fulfillment in Israel with the Jews, with David on the throne of ISRAEL, Jesus Christ ruling over the entire world, and an age of righteousness and peace on this earth.
We know absolutely NOTHING of this today.
Isaiah 11 has not been fulfilled YET - but it will be someday.
Zechariah 13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

See? This has not yet been fulfilled - we don't KILL those who profess to be prophets - at least not if you are a good Baptist. (All other Protestants have done so in the past, and Catholics are still doing it today - just not in America!)

So there are some aspects of this New Covenant that have not yet been fulfilled. Some have, and we are the benefactors of it. But not all - it points to a future fulfillment of both Jew and Gentile under the literal, physical reign of Jesus Christ.

As to the Lord's Second Coming, again we ask, "Has this verse been literally fulfilled?"
Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

And actually we should include the entire last 3 chapters of Zechariah.

And the answer to the question is a resounding "NO!" These verses and chapters have not yet been fulfilled.
So we are again faced with the following options:
Either
1. God is a liar

OR

2. God does not know how to communicate with humans effectively, concisely, and clearly. In other words, He purposefully has written in "coded" language to confuse us all. Somehow we are all supposed figure out this "symbolic" language.
Again, this denies the plain meaning of II timothy 3:16-17.

OR

3. God knows more than we do, and attempts to instruct us in doctrine as simply as possible. Therefore, what God wrote must be true. If it has not yet happened, then it must be prophetic of what WILL happen. (The Book of Revelation bears this out - Jesus does come back on a white horse, and destroys the army of the Antichrist - right where God said it would happen - Armageddon, i.e. "The valley of Megiddo.")

There are actually a few more covenants in the Bible - but I think I have made my point. Edited by Steve Schwenke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to check into the reasons Spurgeon and virtually all conservative pastors/churches in England rejected Darby and Dispensationalism when they first surfaced.



Or I could look at Dispensationalists today and see that they are typically the most conservative, missions-minded, soul winning Christians in the world.

What do you believe John? Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Rick, I have said before and Ian has also told you that I am historical PreMillennialist. I would add that dispensationalism has nothing to do with the former.



So you do believe that Jesus Christ will reign on the Earth for 1,000 years before the New Heavens and New Earth? It would seem your major hangups would be Israel and Rome.

As far as Israel is concerned, you're unwilling to recognize the promises made to the nation. I can't do anything for you if you are unable to read the plain English of Romans 11 (see post #32, #76).

When it comes to Rome, you are building a straw man. Dispensationalists typically rip Rome down one side and up the other in their commentaries on Revelation. They teach that Babylon is Rome, and that more than likely the Antichrist or the False Prophet is the pope. They teach that there are many antichrists (small 'a') and a future Antichrist (large 'a'), and that both are the Pope.

I'm supposed to believe that this kind of teaching led to the ecumenical movement?


Now the fur hits the fan:
Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

Either that verse means what it says, or God is a liar. It really is that simple.
Somebody earlier said that this verse is fulfilled in Christ. But my friends, the verse does not SAY CHRIST, or Messiah, or anything of that nature. It clearly says DAVID.
Maybe I am crazy, but I am just dumb enough to believe that God is a much better linguist than I am (remember Genesis 11???). I am just dumb enough to believe that God knows how to say what He means in such a way that nobody has to GUESS at what He meant.
I know this - if I want my children to be obedient, I had better give clear instructions.
If I want my employees to produce specific results, I had better give them clear guidelines and instructions.
If I am not clear, then I can only expect catastrophe.

How then, can we have this insane approach to Scripture that starts with the assumption that God didn't know how to tell us what He wanted us to know, and that we are supposed to GUESS at it? How this flies in the face of II Timothy 3:16-17!!! All Scripture is given for DOCTRINE! Well, how can we know what sound doctrine IS if it is not given to us CLEARLY???

Ezekiel 37:24 says plainly and CLEARLY - "DAVID" - not "the son of David", not "the Messiah." It says DAVID. I am therefore FORCED to believe that someday in the future, God will resurrect David, and that David will LITERALLY rule over ISRAEL in the LAND that God promised Abraham.
There are no other options - unless we invent them!!!


Excellent point, which I almost certain will be ignored. There is no way that David can be spiritualized into being Christ. Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Or I could look at Dispensationalists today and see that they are typically the most conservative, missions-minded, soul winning Christians in the world.

What do you believe John?

That hardly makes any sense. You are anti-Calvinist, yet it was Calvinists that started the largest efforts in world missions from England. It was Calvinists such as Edwards and Whitefield that helped bring about Great Awakening in America. In the broader area or region I live the most conservative, missions-minded, soul winning church is Calvinist. By your reasoning, you should accept Calvinism based upon that alone.

I only suggested you look at what the contemporaries of Darby and his new theories had to say about him and his new dispensational theories. It was the most conservative, missions-minded, soul winning churches and pastors, such as Spurgeon, that spoke out against Darby and his new theory of dispensationalism.

It might be well to consider that several folks on OB are conserative, missions-minded and soul winners yet they don't agree with dispensationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




So you do believe that Jesus Christ will reign on the Earth for 1,000 years before the New Heavens and New Earth? It would seem your major hangups would be Israel and Rome.

As far as Israel is concerned, you're unwilling to recognize the promises made to the nation. I can't do anything for you if you are unable to read the plain English of Romans 11 (see post #32, #76).

When it comes to Rome, you are building a straw man. Dispensationalists typically rip Rome down one side and up the other in their commentaries on Revelation. They teach that Babylon is Rome, and that more than likely the Antichrist or the False Prophet is the pope. They teach that there are many antichrists (small 'a') and a future Antichrist (large 'a'), and that both are the Pope.

I'm supposed to believe that this kind of teaching led to the ecumenical movement?



Excellent point, which I almost certain will be ignored. There is no way that David can be spiritualized into being Christ.

I agree that many dispensationalists once spoke out against the RCC and many considered the pope as a prime candidate to be the anti-christ, that's no longer the case. More and more dispensationalists have moved away from such teachings. Some now promote the idea that the revived Roman Empire is a system, not an actual place, that the one world religion is an amalgamation of religions, many say they don't think they pope could be the anti-christ, and a growing number are getting involved in ecumenicism, including the acceptance of Catholicism.

That's not to say all dispensationalists are accepting or adopting these believes, but a growing number are and the trend is continuing in that direction. Even before I was saved I read some dispensational material and they were anti-RCC and that's where I first read the idea of the pope as anti-christ. What I read in this area after being saved was the same. Much of what I've read over the past decade or so has been much different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course everyone is getting liberal, John, that's what the Bible says is going to happen. Premillennial dispensationalists are no exception. Every denomination is going backwards when it comes to Rome, it doesn't matter what camp they are in. The only one that seems to be holding the line is the IFB movement, which is made primarily of dispensational premillennialists.

As far as the days of yesteryear, I really have a hard time caring, to be honest. I agree with David Cloud when he says he has no use for Armenians or Calvinists - they're both wrong! I respectfully say that John Wesley and George Whitefield were both wrong on this subject, but both were amazing men. Many of the heroes of the reformation were wrong in very important areas such as tran/consubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, the role of the church/state, etc - but they were amazing men that changed the world.

If I lived in 1800s I would probably be against dispensationalism because Spurgeon was. But I don't live then, I live now. And the most on-fire-for-God churches are not Calvinistic, your local church notwithstanding, and by and large they are dispensational. There are always exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions.

What do you believe, John?

Another thing - with the advent of the Critical Text, the Federal Reserve, and Margret Sanger, I highly doubt that it was dispensationalism that ruined American and England spiritually.

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course everyone is getting liberal, John, that's what the Bible says is going to happen. Premillennial dispensationalists are no exception. Every denomination is going backwards when it comes to Rome, it doesn't matter what camp they are in. The only one that seems to be holding the line is the IFB movement, which is made primarily of dispensational premillennialists.

As far as the days of yesteryear, I really have a hard time caring, to be honest. I agree with David Cloud when he says he has no use for Armenians or Calvinists - they're both wrong! I respectfully say that John Wesley and George Whitefield were both wrong on this subject, but both were amazing men. Many of the heroes of the reformation were wrong in very important areas such as tran/consubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, the role of the church/state, etc - but they were amazing men that changed the world.

If I lived in 1800s I would probably be against dispensationalism because Spurgeon was. But I don't live then, I live now. And the most on-fire-for-God churches are not Calvinistic, your local church notwithstanding, and by and large they are dispensational. There are always exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions.

What do you believe, John?

You seem to miss the point entirely. The reason you gave for supporting dispensationalism are also valid for supporting Calvinism yet you support the one and reject the other.

Now you say if you were around at the time of Darby and Spurgeon you would have sided with Spurgeon but since you were not, you choose to side with Darby. If Spurgeon was right about Darby and his new theories then, what he said still holds true today.

There are IFB pastors on OB who are not dispensationalists, as well as many other IFB pastors.

The history of Christianity is very much worth studying. If you took the time to study some of this you would indeed find that Calvinist churches have been leaders in missions and soul winning. Today most are aware of such with regards to Spurgeon, but he was just one among many.

The church I referenced isn't a local church, it's a church within this area or region. However, of the local churches, the most conservative, missions-minded and soul winning church also holds to what would be called Calvinist views.

I'm not disputing that some dispensational minded churches are also conservative and have a mind for missions and soul winning but with most I see more of an emphasis upon their dispensational teachings and over focus upon end-times aspects than the former.

In any event, a study of the "great" men of God throughout church history, a history of Christianity in general, and a history of Baptists, is all worthwhile and you will learn that many things commonly believed today about such just isn't so and teachings that are believed to be long standing are not, the roots are different than many believe, and much of what some churches teach and hold to today, their own denominations would have denounced in earlier times.

Considering the state of the IFB churches in this area, and ones I've read about around the country, I don't know that I would say IFB is holding the line and they are not certainly all dispensationalists. We are likely coming to a time when new names will have to be established to distinquish truly more traditional IFB churches from others. While it was once common for IFB churches that turned away from the more traditional IFB beliefs to change their names, today many are holding onto their IFB names even as they take a liberal turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


You seem to miss the point entirely. The reason you gave for supporting dispensationalism are also valid for supporting Calvinism yet you support the one and reject the other.


No, the reason I support dispensationalism today is because it is the most sound way to study the Bible that I know of. The reason I think I would have rejected it if I had lived under Spurgeon and Wesley is because I'm honest enough to admit that I probably would have gone with what one of those great men said. I probably would have been a Calvinist or an Armenian as well.

The close we get to Christ's coming the more light we should have on the Scriptures though. Spurgeon and Wesley were farther along than Luther and Calvin were. Is the church supposed to stop in its study of the Scriptures with John Calvin, or is there more light to be had? John the Baptist was a great man, and Jesus said he was a light in his day, but if believers had stopped with him the men in Acts 19 would have been in trouble.

I have spent time on the mission field of Papua New Guinea and I've been to China. I've been in IFB churches all over this country. The ones who primarily are holding the torch of evangelism and missions are Premillenial Dispensationalists. Yes there are exceptions, and yes the IFB movement is sliding backwards, but they're the best that's out there.

Regardless, great men are not always correct, and great men and history are not the final authority. The Scriptures are the final authority, and it is because of the Scriptures that I am a dispensational premillennialist. While it is interesting to know where it came from and it's nice to know that there are a boatload of good men that agree with me today, if I was the only dispensationalist alive I'd still believe it because I think it is right based upon my own study of the Scriptures.

What do you believe, John?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reply to your post #81 Rick. The Brethren, the founders of premillenial dispensationalism, at least all those around here, have all either closed, gone charismatic and ecumenical, or have gone exclusive.




No, the reason I support dispensationalism today is because it is the most sound way to study the Bible that I know of. The reason I think I would have rejected it if I had lived under Spurgeon and Wesley is because I'm honest enough to admit that I probably would have gone with what one of those great men said. I probably would have been a Calvinist or an Armenian as well.

The close we get to Christ's coming the more light we should have on the Scriptures though. Spurgeon and Wesley were farther along than Luther and Calvin were. Is the church supposed to stop in its study of the Scriptures with John Calvin, or is there more light to be had? John the Baptist was a great man, and Jesus said he was a light in his day, but if believers had stopped with him the men in Acts 19 would have been in trouble.

We do not stop at John Calvin. We belive the scriptures which plainly teach the sovereignty of God in salvation, but you interpret that out. I would follow the 1689 baptist confession of faith,as it is based on the scriptures, not Calvin

I have spent time on the mission field of Papua New Guinea and I've been to China. I've been in IFB churches all over this country. The ones who primarily are holding the torch of evangelism and missions are Premillenial Dispensationalists. Yes there are exceptions, and yes the IFB movement is sliding backwards, but they're the best that's out there.

Regardless, great men are not always correct, and great men and history are not the final authority. The Scriptures are the final authority, and it is because of the Scriptures that I am a dispensational premillennialist. While it is interesting to know where it came from and it's nice to know that there are a boatload of good men that agree with me today, if I was the only dispensationalist alive I'd still believe it because I think it is right based upon my own study of the Scriptures.

What do you believe, John?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOA! Wait a minute! Did I miss something? You said above, "The old covenant established at Mt. Sinai...." But it seems to me that whenever we get into this debate about "Covenant Theology" vs Dispensationalism, the Covenanters always have a tendency to forget a few of the Covenants, and the specific details that accompany them. 1. The Noahic Covenant - in place until Rev. 21 Ge 9:8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, Ge 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; Ge 9:10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. Ge 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 2. The Abrahamic Covenant - unconditional - includes LAND and Physical seed as numerous as the stars, dust, and sand. Also includes the Messianic Line.

Biblical covenants are made by God as a promise of a special relationship. Some covenants are uncondition, such as the covenant with Noah - & all the earth. Nothing man can do can either violate or annul that covenant.

In Gen. 12 God declares his purpose for Abraham, further clarified in 22:18.
in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast
ob
eyed my voice.


The covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15 was unconditional. It was a gift of the land of the Canaanite tribes. That covenant was declared to be fulfilled by Joshua:
23:
14
And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and
ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that n
ot
one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass u
nt
o you, and n
ot
one thing hath failed thereof.


The circumcision covenant in Gen. 17 required obedience.
14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is n
ot
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covena
nt
.


The Sinai covenant, aka the OC is detailed in Lev. 26. That also required obedience. An obedience that was frequency violated, by individuals & the nation, & the judgments & reinstatements resulted. Ultimated perfect obedience lived by our covenant surety Jesus Christ realised that covenant & replaced it with the NC.

If the Covenanter believes that these promises are fulfilled in Christ, and that we are now the benefactors of this covenant, then where, pray tell, is our LAND? The OT Prophets (all of them) continually point to a FUTURE RESTORATION of a nation to their LAND, and these promises are directed at the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham.

As Joshua declared, the land promises to Abraham were fulfilled. Abraham, Isaac & Israel knew he would die without owning the promised land. He also knew by faith the greater, eternal heavenly promises. See Heb. 11:
9
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange cou
nt
ry, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jac
ob
, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.


16
But now they desire a better cou
nt
ry, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is n
ot
ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


So our promised land is the heavenly NH&NE. We are presently citizens of his heavenly kingdom, & live with the promise of teh NH&NE.

The concept of a "spiritual" fulfillment is completely foreign to the OT. Therefore, when the Covenanters say that WE are the recipients of this promise, they can only do so AFTER they shred the OT of its normal, natural, literal meanings, and spiritualize everything away to mean something - anything - other than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

So you side with the carnal literalist Corinthians who Paul had to explain spiritual truths to. He has quite a lot to say about the mystery. He makes it clear in Ephesians:
3
How that by revelation he made known u
nt
o me the mystery; (as I wr
ot
e afore in few words,

4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5
Which in
ot
her ages was n
ot
made known u
nt
o the sons of men, as it is now revealed u
nt
o his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6
That the Ge
nt
iles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


Is Paul shredding the OT?

Our "Covenant" brethren always get off track by thinking that Paul's use of Abraham's FAITH is therefore a fulfillment of the entire covenant. They are wrong on several counts: A. Paul never tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in its entirety.

No, Jesus himself is the perfect fulfilment of the OC. Because of Calvary, we come into a NC relationship withGod in Christ - a covenant that cannot be violated.

If it is, then Revelation makes no sense whatsoever, because we are right back dealing with the 12 tribes of Israel, the Temple, etc. B. Paul says we are his SPIRITUAL seed, not his physical seed. Again, the covenant with Abraham was for PHYSICAL seed and LAND. C. Paul is merely using Abraham as an example of FAITH. Abraham believed what God told him. If you want to know what God told Abraham, read Genesis 15 - it has to do with PHYSICAL PROMISES of children and land!!! Abraham believed what God told him, and accepted it as fact. Paul uses this as an example of how we receive salvation. No works - just faith. Paul never says that we now get all the same promises that Abraham did. It is an example of faith - the kind of faith necessary for NT Salvation.

Merely ??? Read Gal. 3:
26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27
For as many of you as have been baptized i
nt
o Christ have put on Christ.

28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


3. The Mosaic Covenant - a conditional covenant with the NATION of Israel (not the individuals, but the nation), based upon their acceptance of the terms by faith. Deut. 28 is extremely clear that this covenant is a "two-edged sword." If they obey, the Nation of Israel would be blessed. If they broke their end of it, God's curses would come down in buckets. But wait!!! There's more!!! 4. The Davidic Covenant - an unconditional covenant with David - II Samuel 7 2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. Does that verse, and its accompanying passage actually mean what it says? I believe it does. THe Covenanter simply denies any LITERAL interpretation of it, and wants us to believe that Christ has ALREADY fulfilled this prophecy, and that Jesus Christ is now currently reigning over the earth RIGHT NOW.

The promise to David was fulfilled in type by Solomon, in his building of the temple, but clearly refers to Christ & his building of the true spiritual temple with the redeemed as living stones.
16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

A literal understanding is simply that David's line would continue for ever. The line continued, but not the kingdom. Either the promise was broken with the Babylonish captivity, after which there were no more kings, or God's intention was that his promise should be fulfilled in Christ. Matthew & Luke make it very clear that Jesus was born into David's family line of a virgin mother. Peter tells the Jews that Jesus, by his resurrection & ascension sits on David's throne. (Acts 2) James declared Jesus to be the rebuilt tabernacle - restored family line - of David. (Acts 15)
29
Men and brethren, let me freely speak u
nt
o you of the patriarch David, that he is b
ot
h dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us u
nt
o this day.

30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that
of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
that his soul was n
ot
left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.


It's my bed time - I may offer further answers.

Some Reign!!! But that is not what the covenant is. It is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant - physical land, physical throne, physical reign - it is all in the passage, and is continued throughout the rest of the OT prophets. Again, their understanding of it was LITERAL and PHYSICAL. Why would we all of a sudden change what they believed because we have not seen it come to pass yet? Is this any reason to deny the plain words of God? Absolutely not. The only other option then is to look for a future fulfillment of these promises. Now the fur hits the fan: Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. Either that verse means what it says, or God is a liar. It really is that simple. Somebody earlier said that this verse is fulfilled in Christ. But my friends, the verse does not SAY CHRIST, or Messiah, or anything of that nature. It clearly says DAVID. Maybe I am crazy, but I am just dumb enough to believe that God is a much better linguist than I am (remember Genesis 11???). I am just dumb enough to believe that God knows how to say what He means in such a way that nobody has to GUESS at what He meant. I know this - if I want my children to be obedient, I had better give clear instructions. If I want my employees to produce specific results, I had better give them clear guidelines and instructions. If I am not clear, then I can only expect catastrophe. How then, can we have this insane approach to Scripture that starts with the assumption that God didn't know how to tell us what He wanted us to know, and that we are supposed to GUESS at it? How this flies in the face of II Timothy 3:16-17!!! All Scripture is given for DOCTRINE! Well, how can we know what sound doctrine IS if it is not given to us CLEARLY??? Ezekiel 37:24 says plainly and CLEARLY - "DAVID" - not "the son of David", not "the Messiah." It says DAVID. I am therefore FORCED to believe that someday in the future, God will resurrect David, and that David will LITERALLY rule over ISRAEL in the LAND that God promised Abraham. There are no other options - unless we invent them!!! 5. The new covenant Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. Question: Has this "new covenant" been COMPLETELY fulfilled? Answer: NO! If we check the OT references, again we see BEYOND this current church age, and we see a LITERAL, physical fulfillment in Israel with the Jews, with David on the throne of ISRAEL, Jesus Christ ruling over the entire world, and an age of righteousness and peace on this earth. We know absolutely NOTHING of this today. Isaiah 11 has not been fulfilled YET - but it will be someday. Zechariah 13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth. See? This has not yet been fulfilled - we don't KILL those who profess to be prophets - at least not if you are a good Baptist. (All other Protestants have done so in the past, and Catholics are still doing it today - just not in America!) So there are some aspects of this New Covenant that have not yet been fulfilled. Some have, and we are the benefactors of it. But not all - it points to a future fulfillment of both Jew and Gentile under the literal, physical reign of Jesus Christ. As to the Lord's Second Coming, again we ask, "Has this verse been literally fulfilled?" Zec 14:3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. Zec 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And actually we should include the entire last 3 chapters of Zechariah. And the answer to the question is a resounding "NO!" These verses and chapters have not yet been fulfilled. So we are again faced with the following options: Either 1. God is a liar OR 2. God does not know how to communicate with humans effectively, concisely, and clearly. In other words, He purposefully has written in "coded" language to confuse us all. Somehow we are all supposed figure out this "symbolic" language. Again, this denies the plain meaning of II timothy 3:16-17. OR 3. God knows more than we do, and attempts to instruct us in doctrine as simply as possible. Therefore, what God wrote must be true. If it has not yet happened, then it must be prophetic of what WILL happen. (The Book of Revelation bears this out - Jesus does come back on a white horse, and destroys the army of the Antichrist - right where God said it would happen - Armageddon, i.e. "The valley of Megiddo.") There are actually a few more covenants in the Bible - but I think I have made my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



No, the reason I support dispensationalism today is because it is the most sound way to study the Bible that I know of. The reason I think I would have rejected it if I had lived under Spurgeon and Wesley is because I'm honest enough to admit that I probably would have gone with what one of those great men said. I probably would have been a Calvinist or an Armenian as well.

The close we get to Christ's coming the more light we should have on the Scriptures though. Spurgeon and Wesley were farther along than Luther and Calvin were. Is the church supposed to stop in its study of the Scriptures with John Calvin, or is there more light to be had? John the Baptist was a great man, and Jesus said he was a light in his day, but if believers had stopped with him the men in Acts 19 would have been in trouble.

I have spent time on the mission field of Papua New Guinea and I've been to China. I've been in IFB churches all over this country. The ones who primarily are holding the torch of evangelism and missions are Premillenial Dispensationalists. Yes there are exceptions, and yes the IFB movement is sliding backwards, but they're the best that's out there.

Regardless, great men are not always correct, and great men and history are not the final authority. The Scriptures are the final authority, and it is because of the Scriptures that I am a dispensational premillennialist. While it is interesting to know where it came from and it's nice to know that there are a boatload of good men that agree with me today, if I was the only dispensationalist alive I'd still believe it because I think it is right based upon my own study of the Scriptures.

What do you believe, John?

So you believe Spurgeon had more insight than the Apostle Paul and Sheldon Smith has more insight than Spurgeon just because of the times they lived in compared to when Christ returns?

Where does Scripture say that someone in the 21st century will have more biblical insight than someone in the 19th century or 17th century or any other century?

By this reasoning, Bibles put forth today should be better than the KJB because people now have 400 years more biblical insight than did the translators of the KJB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, bro! I think anyone who reads my posts knows I don't believe those things, whereas with you know one knows what you believe on Calvinism or Eschotology because you never take a stand.

Have a great weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, bro! I think anyone who reads my posts knows I don't believe those things, whereas with you know one knows what you believe on Calvinism or Eschotology because you never take a stand.

Have a great weekend.

I didn't put words in your mouth, I pointed out where your logic leads.

You have also made it clear you don't know much of Christian history and don't care about such. This may be why you don't realize the Calvinist Willam Carey is considered the father of modern missions. It might also explain why what many call Calvinism isn't actually Calvinism and why traditional Calvinists (such as Spurgeon) are among the most prolific missionaries/soul winners and why even many non-Calvinists study their works. This might also explain the lack of the actual views of eschatology over the course of Christian history and how they relate to what we see today and how some views that many hold today are far from what was held by most Christians for centuries, or in some cases, even around the world today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't put words in your mouth, I pointed out where your logic leads.

You have also made it clear you don't know much of Christian history and don't care about such. This may be why you don't realize the Calvinist Willam Carey is considered the father of modern missions. It might also explain why what many call Calvinism isn't actually Calvinism and why traditional Calvinists (such as Spurgeon) are among the most prolific missionaries/soul winners and why even many non-Calvinists study their works. This might also explain the lack of the actual views of eschatology over the course of Christian history and how they relate to what we see today and how some views that many hold today are far from what was held by most Christians for centuries, or in some cases, even around the world today.

1. I think Rick has a pretty good handle on history.
2. The Calvinists did NOTHING for missions. The English Baptists of the early 1800's were dying because their staunch Calvinism. When William Carey attempted to persuade some Baptist preachers that it was their duty to send people out to foreign lands to preach the gospel to those heathen, he was told to sit down and shut up.

Eh? What? Sorry - what was that you said about the Calvinists being missionaries and soul-winners????

3. John Calvin himself was not soul-winner or missions supporter. The only "soul-winning" he did was with the edge of a sword.

I have several books here on my shelf about Baptist history and church history, and several of them detail the history of dispensational teaching. It did NOT start with Darby. He merely took what was being taught and put it in writing. If you remember your Baptist history so well, you would remember that not only did they hunt US like dogs, but they also burned ALL of our writings along with our bodies.
But this does not mean we weren't teaching it all along - it only means that our enemies attempted to erase all traces of our existence.

Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist - not a "thoroughbred." "Hyper-calvinists" are basically fatalists. And they are not missions-minded or soul-winners. They believe that the "elect" will be saved without our help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1. I think Rick has a pretty good handle on history.
2. The Calvinists did NOTHING for missions. The English Baptists of the early 1800's were dying because their staunch Calvinism. When William Carey attempted to persuade some Baptist preachers that it was their duty to send people out to foreign lands to preach the gospel to those heathen, he was told to sit down and shut up.

Eh? What? Sorry - what was that you said about the Calvinists being missionaries and soul-winners????

3. John Calvin himself was not soul-winner or missions supporter. The only "soul-winning" he did was with the edge of a sword.

I have several books here on my shelf about Baptist history and church history, and several of them detail the history of dispensational teaching. It did NOT start with Darby. He merely took what was being taught and put it in writing. If you remember your Baptist history so well, you would remember that not only did they hunt US like dogs, but they also burned ALL of our writings along with our bodies.
But this does not mean we weren't teaching it all along - it only means that our enemies attempted to erase all traces of our existence.

Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist - not a "thoroughbred." "Hyper-calvinists" are basically fatalists. And they are not missions-minded or soul-winners. They believe that the "elect" will be saved without our help.

Actually, it was Rick who said he didn't know or care about most of the history.

As to Calvinism and missions, I've read a great many books on missions and Calvinists were among the most missions minded, even anti-Calvinists back in earlier times admitted as such.

Spurgeon called himself a traditional or true Calvinist and always spoke against fasle Calvinists (hyper-Calvinists...though he had a different name for them I don't recall off hand).

True Calvinists, such as Spurgeon, were very much mission minded and were very much into soul winning. They still are today. There is a church in this region today that is Calvinist and they are very mission minded and the most soul winning church around. There is an area pastor, who is Calvinist, on a local radio station that preaches the Gospel and calls sinners to repentance. The idea that true Calvinists are not soul winners is false. There are those who are hyper-Calvinists who believe all who are to be saved will simply be saved when ever God decides for them, but as Spurgeon and so many others have stated, that's not true Calvinism and that's not what they see in Scripture.

In any event, the point wasn't to defend or attack Calvinism, simply to point out the idea that Calvinists are not soul winners or mission minded is false.

There are many facets to our wonderful Christian history, as well as our Baptist history, which is why I suggest folks take the time to read and learn. It's not all as cut and dried as many would think. For Americans who might not be interested in Baptist history outside America, the history of Baptists in America is very interesting from colonial times to present.

In any event, I was wondering how long Liberty Baptist Church has been in Amarillo and where it's located. My wife is from in and around Amarillo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biblical covenants are made by God as a promise of a special relationship. Some covenants are uncondition, such as the covenant with Noah - & all the earth. Nothing man can do can either violate or annul that covenant.

In Gen. 12 God declares his purpose for Abraham, further clarified in 22:18.
in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast
ob
eyed my voice.


The covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15 was unconditional. It was a gift of the land of the Canaanite tribes. That covenant was declared to be fulfilled by Joshua:




23:
14
And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and
ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that n
ot
one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass u
nt
o you, and n
ot
one thing hath failed thereof.


But this is where we get into the mutilation of Scripture.
1. What were the boundaries of the land that God gave to Abraham, and then later to Moses?

Deuteronomy 11:24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.
Deuteronomy 1:7 Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Numbers 34:1-12 also go into great detail about the boundaries.

Here is the problem. I listed 3 references that identify the northern boundary as the Euphrates River. There is no record anywhere in the Book of Joshua of Israel ever going that far north under Joshua's leadership.
Hence, the promises to Abraham were NOT fulfilled in Joshua's day. All Joshua is telling them is that when they depended upon the Lord to deliver them, HE DID.
But even Joshua himself admits and writes that the Israelites did not COMPLETELY eradicate the Canaanites, as they were told. The book of Judges, Ruth, and I Samuel tell the tale of the continuing problems with those that were left in the land.

So, you are simply mistaken in assuming that the Joshua reference means the Abrahamic Covenant in regards to the land was fulfilled. It wasn't. All the facts and details are listed for us right there in Joshua and Judges.




The circumcision covenant in Gen. 17 required obedience.


14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is n
ot
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covena
nt
.


The Sinai covenant, aka the OC is detailed in Lev. 26. That also required obedience. An obedience that was frequency violated, by individuals & the nation, & the judgments & reinstatements resulted. Ultimated perfect obedience lived by our covenant surety Jesus Christ realised that covenant & replaced it with the NC.

Yes, but the Mosaic Covenant was made with the NATION of Israel, not any particular individuals. Obviously, every individual had to do their part, but Deut. 28 makes it clear that God was looking for NATIONAL obedience. The OT demonstrates repeatedly that the way God deals with any given nation is far different than the way He deals with any given individual.



If the Covenanter believes that these promises are fulfilled in Christ, and that we are now the benefactors of this covenant, then where, pray tell, is our LAND? The OT Prophets (all of them) continually point to a FUTURE RESTORATION of a nation to their LAND, and these promises are directed at the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham.

As Joshua declared, the land promises to Abraham were fulfilled. Abraham, Isaac & Israel knew he would die without owning the promised land. He also knew by faith the greater, eternal heavenly promises. See Heb. 11:




9
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange cou
nt
ry, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jac
ob
, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.


16
But now they desire a better cou
nt
ry, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is n
ot
ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.


So our promised land is the heavenly NH&NE. We are presently citizens of his heavenly kingdom, & live with the promise of teh NH&NE.

Joshua did not declare them fulfilled. You have imposed your system of interpretation on the text. They never conquered the land as far north as the Euphrates in Joshua's day.
But then you make a quantum leap in logic, and miss the entire point of the conversation.
If in fact, things are as you say - that the Abrahamic Covenant in regards to the land was fulfilled in Joshua's day, then why do the OT prophets AFTER Joshua keep telling us about a PHYSICAL kingdom on Planet Earth, with the Jewish people as the Head of the Nations?


The concept of a "spiritual" fulfillment is completely foreign to the OT. Therefore, when the Covenanters say that WE are the recipients of this promise, they can only do so AFTER they shred the OT of its normal, natural, literal meanings, and spiritualize everything away to mean something - anything - other than what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

So you side with the carnal literalist Corinthians who Paul had to explain spiritual truths to. He has quite a lot to say about the mystery. He makes it clear in Ephesians:




3
How that by revelation he made known u
nt
o me the mystery; (as I wr
ot
e afore in few words,

4
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5
Which in
ot
her ages was n
ot
made known u
nt
o the sons of men, as it is now revealed u
nt
o his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6
That the Ge
nt
iles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:


Is Paul shredding the OT?

This passage from Ephesians has absolutely NOTHING to do with the LAND! You have somehow imposed your theology into the phrase "the mystery of Christ," and somehow interpretted that to mean that all of the OT writings about the land, the Tribes of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, Mount Olivet splitting in half, the other Gentile nations serving Israel and observing the feast of Tabernacles, and hundreds of other verses, as all SPIRITUAL. Where do you get that idea from?
What Scripture do you have that spefically tells us that these hundreds of verses are not literal?
The question you should ask yourself is, "What is the mystery of Christ?"

Hint - it has nothing to do with spiritualizing/allegorizing ANYTHING from the OT.

Our "Covenant" brethren always get off track by thinking that Paul's use of Abraham's FAITH is therefore a fulfillment of the entire covenant. They are wrong on several counts: A. Paul never tells us that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in its entirety.

No, Jesus himself is the perfect fulfilment of the OC. Because of Calvary, we come into a NC relationship withGod in Christ - a covenant that cannot be violated.



You missed the point again. If what you say is true, then why didn't the Apostle Paul tell us directly and plainly that all of the physical promises made to the physical seed of Abraham (i.e. the Jews) have now been spiritualized into something not physical? Where are those verses and passages in the Bible that explicitly state this?
I agree that Jesus Christ fulfilled every letter of the OT Law. But that does not necessarily negate all of the promises of the land made to Israel. He is, after all, the KING of Kings, and the KING of the Jews.



If it is, then Revelation makes no sense whatsoever, because we are right back dealing with the 12 tribes of Israel, the Temple, etc. B. Paul says we are his SPIRITUAL seed, not his physical seed. Again, the covenant with Abraham was for PHYSICAL seed and LAND. C. Paul is merely using Abraham as an example of FAITH. Abraham believed what God told him. If you want to know what God told Abraham, read Genesis 15 - it has to do with PHYSICAL PROMISES of children and land!!! Abraham believed what God told him, and accepted it as fact. Paul uses this as an example of how we receive salvation. No works - just faith. Paul never says that we now get all the same promises that Abraham did. It is an example of faith - the kind of faith necessary for NT Salvation.

Merely ??? Read Gal. 3:




26
For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27
For as many of you as have been baptized i
nt
o Christ have put on Christ.

28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Can you show me in Genesis 15 where Abraham received the "promise of the spirit?" All I read about was the promise of the LAND, which was NOT fulfilled under Joshua.

Again, you are imposing your system, and reading it into the text, when it is not there. Paul is contrasting works vs faith, and is using Abraham as an example. Paul never states in Galatians that we REPLACE Israel as a Nation. He never states that we get the promises made to Abraham. He is dealing with a SPIRITUAL SUBJECT, and demonstrating the inadequacy of works. Abraham received his covenant by faith, and so do we. It does not say that we get the exact same promises and rewards as Abraham. Abraham was promised PHYSICAL SEED, PHYSICAL LAND. We never are promised those things.


3. The Mosaic Covenant - a conditional covenant with the NATION of Israel (not the individuals, but the nation), based upon their acceptance of the terms by faith. Deut. 28 is extremely clear that this covenant is a "two-edged sword." If they obey, the Nation of Israel would be blessed. If they broke their end of it, God's curses would come down in buckets. But wait!!! There's more!!! 4. The Davidic Covenant - an unconditional covenant with David - II Samuel 7 2 Samuel 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. Does that verse, and its accompanying passage actually mean what it says? I believe it does. THe Covenanter simply denies any LITERAL interpretation of it, and wants us to believe that Christ has ALREADY fulfilled this prophecy, and that Jesus Christ is now currently reigning over the earth RIGHT NOW.

The promise to David was fulfilled in type by Solomon, in his building of the temple, but clearly refers to Christ & his building of the true spiritual temple with the redeemed as living stones.
16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

A literal understanding is simply that David's line would continue for ever. The line continued, but not the kingdom. Either the promise was broken with the Babylonish captivity, after which there were no more kings, or God's intention was that his promise should be fulfilled in Christ. Matthew & Luke make it very clear that Jesus was born into David's family line of a virgin mother. Peter tells the Jews that Jesus, by his resurrection & ascension sits on David's throne. (Acts 2) James declared Jesus to be the rebuilt tabernacle - restored family line - of David. (Acts 15)




29
Men and brethren, let me freely speak u
nt
o you of the patriarch David, that he is b
ot
h dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us u
nt
o this day.

30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that
of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
that his soul was n
ot
left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32
This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.


It's my bed time - I may offer further answers.

And here you prove my point. Your system cannot handle the literal interpretation of the passages, so you impose your ideology into them to make it "fit."
It doesn't fit.
If David is resurrected at the 2nd Coming of Christ, and sits on a throne ruling over Israel, and that reign never ends, then it is entirely proper and appropriate to refer to that reign as FOREVER.
"The Bible NEVER defines "tabernacle" as a "restored family line." That is a pure invention on your part. It is nowhere in the text.
Ezekiel 37:24 is crystal clear - David will sit on the throne of Israel. Jesus Christ will rule over the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it was Rick who said he didn't know or care about most of the history.

As to Calvinism and missions, I've read a great many books on missions and Calvinists were among the most missions minded, even anti-Calvinists back in earlier times admitted as such.

Spurgeon called himself a traditional or true Calvinist and always spoke against fasle Calvinists (hyper-Calvinists...though he had a different name for them I don't recall off hand).

True Calvinists, such as Spurgeon, were very much mission minded and were very much into soul winning. They still are today. There is a church in this region today that is Calvinist and they are very mission minded and the most soul winning church around. There is an area pastor, who is Calvinist, on a local radio station that preaches the Gospel and calls sinners to repentance. The idea that true Calvinists are not soul winners is false. There are those who are hyper-Calvinists who believe all who are to be saved will simply be saved when ever God decides for them, but as Spurgeon and so many others have stated, that's not true Calvinism and that's not what they see in Scripture.

In any event, the point wasn't to defend or attack Calvinism, simply to point out the idea that Calvinists are not soul winners or mission minded is false.

There are many facets to our wonderful Christian history, as well as our Baptist history, which is why I suggest folks take the time to read and learn. It's not all as cut and dried as many would think. For Americans who might not be interested in Baptist history outside America, the history of Baptists in America is very interesting from colonial times to present.

In any event, I was wondering how long Liberty Baptist Church has been in Amarillo and where it's located. My wife is from in and around Amarillo.

Look, I know Rick well enough to know that he has a handle on history. The problem is that people can use historical facts to prove anything they want to by manipulating them. People treat history and the Bible the same way. They have pre-conceived ideas, look for things that support their ideas, and then tell everyone, "See??? I told you I was right!"
Sometimes people like me and Rick get tired of the "historical arguments."

And we can always split hairs over semantics - what is a dispensationalist? What is a Calvinist? What is an Arminian? And we would all have different answers I am sure.

LBC was started in 1993. I came out 3-1/2 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Again I ask, "If 70 A.D. was when all was fulfilled, how do you explain this verse?"

There were worse tribulations before and after what transpired in 70 A.D. These words spoken by Jesus aren't confined to Israel only...since Jesus is the one who brought up "since the beginning of the world". There was no Israel for thousands of years after the beginning of the world, and the flood happened long before even the call of Abram.

Again I ask, is Jesus a liar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Look, I know Rick well enough to know that he has a handle on history. The problem is that people can use historical facts to prove anything they want to by manipulating them. People treat history and the Bible the same way. They have pre-conceived ideas, look for things that support their ideas, and then tell everyone, "See??? I told you I was right!"
Sometimes people like me and Rick get tired of the "historical arguments."

And we can always split hairs over semantics - what is a dispensationalist? What is a Calvinist? What is an Arminian? And we would all have different answers I am sure.

LBC was started in 1993. I came out 3-1/2 years ago.

I was simply going by what Rick said. If Rick knows more than he said that's fine.

No doubt some folks look to history and either attempt to distort it or make their pet view fit history. That's not proper historical study and I'm against such. The actual study of history to discover the truth is much more interesting, as well as Christian, than false pursuits.

You hit a very important point with regards to what is this and that. Lables tend to be too broad but unless we distinquish what we are talking about how will we know? There are a few different views of dispensationalism (for example), so if one really wants to discuss such they first must determine which branch of dispensationalism they hold to because it makes a big difference as to how many dispensations one believes there are and just what each means.

Hopefully, at least when it comes to discussions among Christians, we can trust that what each says of themselves is true. If one says they are "this" type of Calvinist or "that" type of dispensationalist or of "this" eschatological view or "that" standing regarding rapture, etc., then we should accept that and not try telling one another we don't believe them, that we believe we know what their views are better than they do. If you tell me you believe in eternal security, of what point is there in me arguing that you obviously mean something else?

Thank you for sharing about Liberty Baptist church. My wife had not heard of that church there but she had left Amarillo by 1993. Living in Hedley for a time, then New Mexico and Arkansas.

I like your post #91 for it's comparative nature, use of Scripture and ease for studying the matter.

Do you believe David and Solomon had control of the entire land God promised to Israel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Again I ask, "If 70 A.D. was when all was fulfilled, how do you explain this verse?"

There were worse tribulations before and after what transpired in 70 A.D. These words spoken by Jesus aren't confined to Israel only...since Jesus is the one who brought up "since the beginning of the world". There was no Israel for thousands of years after the beginning of the world, and the flood happened long before even the call of Abram.

Again I ask, is Jesus a liar?

Perhaps it would help to rightly divide the Olivet Discourse between those things Jesus was speaking to the near future and distant future.

The OIivet Discourse is Jesus answering more than one question from His disciples. The first portion of the Discourse deals with that which was to occur in 70 A.D. while the second portion deals primarily with things that will happen at an unknown future date.

From the descriptions of things that will occur in the future, it seems to clearly indicate that happening will be obvious and so open that all will know it's occuring. The things mentioned have not yet occured, and they didn't occur in 70 A.D., so they are yet future. While the event will catch most (all?) by surprise, it will be a very open event that no one will miss seeing.

This is a very basic outline and it might help to expand upon this verse by verse if anyone is willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is extremely offensive to suggest that Jesus could be lying. The inference is that either the Olivet prophecy means exactly what NN says it means or Jesus was lying. I could make a similar assertion regarding "this generation." No. Let us discuss these prophecies, knowing that Jesus speaks the truth, & while we may disagree, we respect each other as fellow believers who do believe the Scriptures.

No interpretation system is "literal." If it were literal, there would be no need for interpetation as all would be clear, & discussion would be superfluous.

I maintain that the OT must be understood by the NT use of it, so that the OT prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, & prophecy relating to Israel's glorious future is speaking of the NH&NE. If Israel wants to enjoy the blessings promised, they must find them in Christ in this Gospel "disp." And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The disps insist that OT prophecy stands apart from the NT, so that all the prophecies relating to Israel are yet for a future millennial disp between the second coming &the NH&NE. Some OT prophecy was specific for Jesus' first coming & saving work but the bulk of OT prophecy is not for the present Gospel age. All it does is provide material for sensational events Christians will be raptured out of so they have a grandstand view. The result is that the glorious earthly reign of Christ; the glorious "mil" future for Israel is a period where an incredible mixture of glorious resurrected saints live with unbelievers. Their mil ends in a world wide rebellion with Israel besieged. Multimple "comings" raptures resurrections, judgemnts ensue. The whole prophetic future is utterly confused.

The kingdom comprises children of God & children of Satan, & the great separation comes when Jesus returns.

37
He answered and said u
nt
o them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42
And shall cast them i
nt
o a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43
Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perhaps it would help to rightly divide the Olivet Discourse between those things Jesus was speaking to the near future and distant future.

The OIivet Discourse is Jesus answering more than one question from His disciples. The first portion of the Discourse deals with that which was to occur in 70 A.D. while the second portion deals primarily with things that will happen at an unknown future date.

From the descriptions of things that will occur in the future, it seems to clearly indicate that happening will be obvious and so open that all will know it's occuring. The things mentioned have not yet occured, and they didn't occur in 70 A.D., so they are yet future. While the event will catch most (all?) by surprise, it will be a very open event that no one will miss seeing.

This is a very basic outline and it might help to expand upon this verse by verse if anyone is willing.

Jesus predicts the destruction, & his disciples ask about it, with the questions:
Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Do these questions indicate an accurate understanding of Jesus' teaching, so that the answer can be neatly classified, or were the disciples confused, & therefore asked? He has, of course, been making dire predictions & warnings against the Jewish leaders ever since his triumphal entry, fulfilling Zec. 9. He had spoking of coming to destroy the husbandmen.
40
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do u
nt
o those husbandmen?

41
They say u
nt
o him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard u
nt
o
ot
her husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42
Jesus saith u
nt
o them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43
Therefore say I u
nt
o you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.


Is the end of the world the destruction of the planet? "World" has many uses, & often refers to people. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world (κόσμος) is gone after him. Is the Gk word αἰῶνος significant? The end of the OC age?

The disciples are asking about Jesus coming to destroy the temple & the Jews who rejected him, & to end the OC age & set up his eternal kingdom over believing Israel.

I hope all agree that taken as a whole, vs 4-34 are referring to the prophesied destruction, but for a few verses that suggest his second coming in glory. 4-26 clearly refer to the destruction, & historical records show that the Christians saw the signs & fled the city before the destruction. Comparison with Luke 21 makes the prophecy clear.

Vs 35 on are a general warning regarding the second coming - without warning signs. We have to be faithful, watching & praying. Mat. 25 gives examples of faithful servants of their Master.

The specific questions have been repeatly raised as absolute objections to the AD 70 understanding. Understanding, NOT interpretation.

16
Then let them which be in Judaea flee i
nt
o the mou
nt
ains:

17
Let him which is on the housetop n
ot
come down to take any thing out of his house:

18
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his cl
ot
hes.

19
And woe u
nt
o them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20
But pray ye that your flight be n
ot
in the wi
nt
er, neither on the sabbath day:

21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was n
ot
since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


Is Luke writing of a different occasion?
21
Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mou
nt
ains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let n
ot
them that are in the cou
nt
ries e
nt
er therei
nt
o.

22
For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23
But woe u
nt
o them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.


It is not possible to read these Scriptures literally without seeing their fulfilment in the events preceding the destruction. NN is arguing with Jesus, not with me. To suggest that Jesus was lying is extremely offensive.

I'll look at other "difficult" aspects of the prophecy later. Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


1. I think Rick has a pretty good handle on history.
2. The Calvinists did NOTHING for missions. The English Baptists of the early 1800's were dying because their staunch Calvinism. When William Carey attempted to persuade some Baptist preachers that it was their duty to send people out to foreign lands to preach the gospel to those heathen, he was told to sit down and shut up.

Eh? What? Sorry - what was that you said about the Calvinists being missionaries and soul-winners????

3. John Calvin himself was not soul-winner or missions supporter. The only "soul-winning" he did was with the edge of a sword.

I have several books here on my shelf about Baptist history and church history, and several of them detail the history of dispensational teaching. It did NOT start with Darby. He merely took what was being taught and put it in writing. If you remember your Baptist history so well, you would remember that not only did they hunt US like dogs, but they also burned ALL of our writings along with our bodies.
But this does not mean we weren't teaching it all along - it only means that our enemies attempted to erase all traces of our existence.

Spurgeon was a moderate Calvinist - not a "thoroughbred." "Hyper-calvinists" are basically fatalists. And they are not missions-minded or soul-winners. They believe that the "elect" will be saved without our help.


There are not many hyper Calvinists about. They are mostly Gospel Standard Baptists, over here.

Most Baptists who are Particular Baptists are Grace Baptists and they have a useful mission work via the Grace Baptist Mission. Most General Baptists, which includes every General Baptist Church that I know of would be ecumenical.

My great grandfather's sister was a member of a particular Baptist Church in Norwich. She later emigrated to Australia and soon became the first missionary of the Queensland Baprtist Missionary society, and served in India, now Bangla Desh, for over 30 years, She returned to Oz only two or three times, and to England only once, due to ill health. She eventually retired in India, but when her health declined, she was brought back to Oz by the QL baptists, but died before she could rejoin her family. Another member from the same church also went as a missionary from England to Calcutta, and he baptised some of her converts. Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



1. "World" has many uses, & often refers to people.


2. NN is arguing with Jesus, not with me.


3. To suggest that Jesus was lying is extremely offensive.




1. You're correct; in that, "world" has different uses. However, in Matthew 24:21, "world" means...world. It is the Greek word "kosmos" which means...orderly arrangement, the world, including its inhabitants (by implication).

Here's the verse again...Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world (kosmos) to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Jesus is saying that when the "great tribulation" comes, it will be worse than any before it, and it will be the worst ever...in the world.


2. I'm not "arguing" with you or anyone else...especially not Jesus. I simply asked a question...to which no answer has still been given. Here's my question again...
If all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., how do you explain this verse (Matthew 24:21)? In light that there have been far worse tribulations before and after 70 A.D.


3. I'm in no way suggesting that Jesus was lying, for he is God, and it's impossible for him to lie; however, according to preterism, if all was fulfilled in 70 A.D., then that would mean Jesus lied; therefore, that is extremely offensive...

  • Again I ask the question, is Jesus a liar?
Edited by No Nicolaitans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 42 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...