Kingdom Of Antichrist ?

[Dr James Ach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

 

Is this the Covenant Theology you speak of?

Notice how it says that it is compared to "Replacement Theology" which Covenant Theologians deny. But why do they deny and how do they justify the denial considering that the conclusions, implications, methods of interpretations are exactly the same? Simply by shuffling definitions like any good Calvinist does. Here's the sleight of hand:

 

Replacement Theology: "God has replaced Israel with the church and transferred all of the promises that Israel could have inherited to the church as a result of their rebellion. God predicted that the Gentiles would be made a part of Israel anyway in Isaiah 11 and there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile now anyway and Romans 4, and Galatians 3-6...." etc...etc..blah blah blah

 

Covenant Theology. "We don't claim that God has replaced Israel because there is no such thing as a promise to any physical Jews now, only "spiritual Jews" which is really the church. So technically, we are not replacing Israel because we ARE Israel."

 

Now when you study the claims of covenant theologians to those among Calvinists that admit there is no difference, you can see that the only difference is semantical. When you confront a CT with these facts, they will simply accuse you of misrepresenting their position or not  understanding it (as most Calvinists do) and then in the process of attempting to explain themselves will go right back to the circular logic I just explained above.

 

Calvinists need to interpret Scripture like this because it's the only way to hack away the meaning of Romans 9-11 and turn it into a treatise on individual deterministic salvation instead of what it's actually about. Get rid of the promises to Israel the people and the only option left for the meaning of Romans 9-11 is that it MUST mean that God determines ahead of time who is saved and who isn't . Thus the Calvinists method of allegorical interpretation is necessary in order to maintain their view of misused proof texts in Romans 9-11 and John 6. But you always see how such a system falls apart when a Calvinist gets to Revelation which is why John Calvin himself never touched it with a 10 foot pole (and it wasn't because he never had time to either).

Now watch as the Calvinists reply how bad I'm misrepresenting them and "don't understand Calvinism or Covenant Theology" even though I was a Calvinist for 15 years and studied everything from Calvin, Hodge, Jones, Gill, Henry, Clark, Spurgeon, Maschen, Boettner, Pink, Edwards, Keach to the modern day heretics like White, Sproul, Piper, MacArthur (a very confused Calvinist), Washer, Mohler, Carson, Boice, Helm, D.J. Kennedy, etc..and had the Westminster Confession memorized.

If the Calvinists / Covenant theology adherents on here were honest, they would claim that there is no such thing as a future antichrist.

[DaveW]

Because some here like to slam Covenanter, and myself and others, who mostly follow Covenant Theology teachings, using the term Replacement Theology.

And that is not what we believe or teach, some just like to aggravate, mostly because they lose their 'focus'.

 

 

No ...... even when it is not directed at him - when someone just mentions replacement theology he turns and defends covenant theology - if it is not the same, then why get so worked up about it?

 

He can say all he likes that they are not the same, but when he answers comments about replacement theology with answers about covenant theology, he reveals what his opinion actually is, as against what he says it is.......

[beameup]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

 

Is this the Covenant Theology you speak of?

It's Calvinism, much of which is derived from the 4th Century Catholic Church's "Theology".

 

"Covenant" theology teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews

and has replaced the Jews with Christians as his chosen people in the earth.

[Genevanpreacher]

No ...... even when it is not directed at him - when someone just mentions replacement theology he turns and defends covenant theology - if it is not the same, then why get so worked up about it?

 

He can say all he likes that they are not the same, but when he answers comments about replacement theology with answers about covenant theology, he reveals what his opinion actually is, as against what he says it is.......

 

So what about 'the Kingdom of Antichrist'? You know, the topic here?

[Genevanpreacher]

It's Calvinism, much of which is derived from the 4th Century Catholic Church's "Theology".

 

"Covenant" theology teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews

and has replaced the Jews with Christians as his chosen people in the earth.

 

I am not a Calvinist, yet I believe most of the Covenant teachings.

[DaveW]

So what about 'the Kingdom of Antichrist'? You know, the topic here?

 

So it is OK for you to follow this line for three posts, but not for me????

 

I was replying to your post directly........

[MountainChristian]

I am not a Calvinist, yet I believe most of the Covenant teachings.

 

Unless I'm mistaken most members here believe covenant/replacement teachings are false, why try to fellowship with people that believe you are in error? Are you trying to convert them to your beliefs? 

 

Your name "Genevanpreacher", does that mean you preach at a church from the Geneva Bible? If so, what kind of church is it? Does the whole church use that bible? The reason I'm asking, I'm not well traveled. I've never heard of anyone using that Bible. 

[Genevanpreacher]

Unless I'm mistaken most members here believe covenant/replacement teachings are false, why try to fellowship with people that believe you are in error? Are you trying to convert them to your beliefs? 

 

Your name "Genevanpreacher", does that mean you preach at a church from the Geneva Bible? If so, what kind of church is it? Does the whole church use that bible? The reason I'm asking, I'm not well traveled. I've never heard of anyone using that Bible. 

 

Not all here believe it is error. Yes I have been preaching from the 1560 Geneva Bible for 11 years now. And our church is small, but we all use the same Bible in our daily reading and services.

Oh, and we call ourselves Genevan Baptists.

[Eric Stahl]

2 Peter 3:8-10

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

⁹ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

All people where created with free will and could choose to trust in Jesus. It would be against God's own will to create people with no chance to be saved!

[Arbo]

Re dimensions discussion of posts 43-47:  Can anyone think of another place in Scriptures where specific measurements are given for a symbolic OBject? 

[Invicta]

Re dimensions discussion of posts 43-47:  Can anyone think of another place in Scriptures where specific measurements are given for a symbolic OBject? 

 

No one picked up my previous question.  If the city is only a city, how is it also described as a mountain?

[Arbo]

Rev 21:9 ¶  And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife.
10  And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Is this what you refer to?

[Dr James Ach]

Revelation 21:10 doesn't say it is a mountain, it just says a mountain was where John viewed the city from.

 

However, Jerusalem is referred to as both a city and a mountain in Zechariah 8:3

 

"Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain."

 

Cities themselves have various names for themselves: metropolis, town, suburbs, ghettos, uptown, downtown, southside, etc.but they are never referred to as strawberry poptarts.

 

What Invicta is trying to do is rationalize that if a city can have a dual meaning, like 'city' and 'mountain', then it is also possible to mean 'city' and 'a bunch of human door mats and ceiling fans' at the same time. In other words, the allegorical interpretation of the Calvinist/Covenant Theologians (and Preterism) allow a city to be a city and a strawberry poptart at the same time. There's no distinction between things that CAN be used interchangeably from those that CAN NOT, and in Revelation, ARE NOT.

[Dr James Ach]

There is also something very prophetic about Zech 8:3 in and of itself if one is familiar with the geometry of Jerusalem (current and past) compared to the "math" given in Zech 8:3 which has not happened yet

[DaveW]

No one picked up my previous question. If the city is only a city, how is it also described as a mountain?

No, I picked up on the important part of that post where you lied about what I said to try to smokescreen the stupidity of your position and avoid the OBvious truth.