Understanding Hebrews -2

[Covenanter]

Self confessed non-IFB leading a study on an IFB site???????
And promoting a plainly false doctrine and one which is traditionally rejected by IFB.

Not right.

 

 

Ian's profile:

• Bio
  Member of FIEC churches since 1957 - the year of my conversion & baptism.
  Married to Ann.
  FIEC is the UK equivalent of IFB, with a doctrinal basis that insists on fundamentals, but allows divergence on other matters.

[DaveW]

Not IFB...... not equivalent.

Views and positions that are not consistent with this site, nor with traditional IFB positions.

He should not be leading a study on this forum.
This thread, a study led by him, has one single purpose - to promote replacement theology, a theology that is not IFB, nor is it biblical.

[John81]

Not IFB...... not equivalent.

Views and positions that are not consistent with this site, nor with traditional IFB positions.

He should not be leading a study on this forum.
This thread, a study led by him, has one single purpose - to promote replacement theology, a theology that is not IFB, nor is it biblical.

This is Bro Matt's site and he has welcomed Coventanter, and many others, who are not IFB. Bro Matt has stated that other than a few points (such as using the KJB, salvation by grace through faith, no personal attacks, civility in posting) the forum is open to discuss matters, including those we disagree upon, and we are free to participate, refrain or even ignore threads, posts, or even members.

 

If you believe Bro Matt is wrong in this, that's something to speak with him about. I've been here since 2005 and Bro Matt has granted wide latitude in that which we post and discuss here. This is a very tame topic and thread compared to some that have been allowed over the years.

[DaveW]

Plenty of other false teachers have been banned for trying to lead studies where they push their false doctrine.
He should not be able to lead such a study.
Tame or not, it is false teaching that we all know he holds to, and he us leading this study with the purpose of pushing that false position.

[John81]

Plenty of other false teachers have been banned for trying to lead studies where they push their false doctrine.
He should not be able to lead such a study.
Tame or not, it is false teaching that we all know he holds to, and he us leading this study with the purpose of pushing that false position.

This is false teaching according to SOME within IFB, but not ALL within IFB. There are some IFBs who hold to this view that Covenanter holds to.

 

Those who have been banned in the past were not banned for discussion of a matter such as this, but for promoting false means of salvation, for promoting false religions, for having critical posts attacking IFBs, for posing in uncivil, attacking and sometimes hateful manners.

 

Were I as impassioned as you appear to be over this topic I would either post clear biblical refutation of what I disagree with, and leave it at that, or I would refrain from viewing this thread.

[DaveW]

Done, but to no avail.

You seem to be more intent on stopping me from pointing out false teaching than worrying about that false teaching.

He should not be LEADING A STUDY WHERE HE IS PROMOTING FALSE DOCTRINE.

[John81]

Done, but to no avail.

You seem to be more intent on stopping me from pointing out false teaching than worrying about that false teaching.

He should not be LEADING A STUDY WHERE HE IS PROMOTING FALSE DOCTRINE.

I'm not intent upon stopping you, but what you are doing isn't actually pointing out false teaching. The only way to confront what one believes to be false teaching is to put forth the truth. Simply declaring something false, complaining about certain things, calling for people to be banned, doesn't point to a teaching being false.

 

If a scriptural rebuttal to anything is put forth, it's never to no avail for God's Word doesn't return void. If we interject our own things into a post that may be to no avail, but not the putting forth of Scripture.

 

The putting forth of Scripture on a matter should be for the edification of all who read it.

 

If you believe continually declaring a post to be false or saying anyone you don't believe is IFB or what they are posting isn't IFB should be banned, that's entirely up to you and I'm not trying to tell you to stop. I only pointed out that if I (myself) was as impassioned about the matter as you appear to be, then I (myself) would either post Scripture on the matter and allow the Scripture to speak, or I would refrain from looking at the thread in question; but that's just me, and I don't say that's what you have to do, need to do, or should do.

[Jim_Alaska]

Have any of you tried baking a loaf of bread without leaven?

 

When baking bread, leaven is a good ingredient, it makes the bread rise. But in His parables Jesus is not using leaven to describe something good. Leaven is, after all, a corrupting agent and in scripture it almost always points to either sin or corruption.

 

Surely Jesus means that when a person receives with meekness the engrafted Word, it works within him, as leaven works within the dough, transforming him in every part.

 

Again, these teachings are parables, which was a common form of teaching in Jesus day. A parable is a story of two different things that point to one Scriptural truth. If we acknowledge that leaven is either sin or a corrupting influence, we cannot in good consciece assert that it is an illustration of God's Word as Covenanter speculates. The subject in these parables is the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is composed of all professing Christianity. His parables were given to hide things from some and reveal them to others.   Lu 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

 

So if we assume that the grain was good to begin with and a corrupting agent was introduced, we can see the clear teaching that within the Kingdom of God there will be false doctrine (leaven) that will corrupt God's Word, resulting in false religion. This is also a warning to His true churches that "a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump."

 

I also find it interesting that tjhis corruption was done by a woman, which by the way is many times in scripture indicative of false religion. Also interesting is the fact that it was done stealthily; she "hid" it. We don't hide the word of God, but proclaim it to all.

 

I have to stop here, this is way off the subject of Hebrews, but I felt I had to speak to the issue that Covenanter so wrongly divided.

 

[Genevanpreacher]

33c203aaf6035894a00fe6f7aed4df63

[John81]

Someone once posted a good sermon on the topic of leaven in which the pastor pointed out that most often leaven is used to signify sin but there are a few instances where that's not the case. The pastor highlighted those verses where leaven isn't used in reference to sin which made it easy to study the matter.

 

If whoever posted that, or whoever knows where it was posted, could provide a link here (or copy/paste the sermon here) this might be another good fit for that sermon.

[Steve Schwenke]

John - we have REPEATEDLY refuted Covenanter's claims over the course of many years.  We have been plenty patient with him.  He is not here to learn, he is here to push his false doctrine.

 

Regarding leaven - I gave two verses from the NT - including a passage from Mt. 16 where Jesus Christ Himself defines "leaven" as false doctrine. 

Once again, Covenanter's and Genevanpreacher's biases and "wacky interpretation" (a phrase borrowed from Covenanter!) is on clear display, and their propensity to COMPLETELY IGNORE SCRIPTURAL DEFINITIONS is on display as well.

[Jim_Alaska]

33c203aaf6035894a00fe6f7aed4df63

[Covenanter]

John - we have REPEATEDLY refuted Covenanter's claims over the course of many years.  Never "refuted" - you've disagreed with me.  We have been plenty patient with him.  He is not here to learn, he is here to push his false doctrine. I'm here for fellowship - I was invited here by Invicta - another Englishman looking for Scriptural discussions & fellowship.

 

Regarding leaven - I gave two verses from the NT - including a passage from Mt. 16 where Jesus Christ Himself defines "leaven" as false doctrine. I am well aware that leaven is used as corrupting influence in the other NT references - the figurative meaning is clear. 

 

When we look at the Kingdom parables, we need FIRST to consider the literal meaning, as it's the parable as a whole that has the meaning.

31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying , The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took , and sowed in his field: 32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown , it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof. 33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took , and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

We CANNOT say in the parable, "the Kingdom of heaven is 'false doctrine.'" Read the parable & give the words their normal, literal meaning before you impose an interpretation. We do need to receive the Kingdom - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. The seed of the Kingdom when sown into good soil yields a fruitful harvest - mustard seed when planted, grows; leaven in meal yields a loaf - staff of life. The parable gives no suggestion of the leavening process being evil. We know about the Passover & unleavened bread - baked & eaten in haste, but breadmaking was & is a normal & healthy process. Like leaven, the Kingdom enters & transforms our whole life.

 

Once again, Covenanter's and Genevanpreacher's biases and "wacky interpretation" (a phrase borrowed from Covenanter!) is on clear display, and their propensity to COMPLETELY IGNORE SCRIPTURAL DEFINITIONS is on display as well. I borrowed "wacky" from Wretched (he used "whacky" & also referred to "muttenhead ideas.")

 

All this is way off topic. You think I'm wrong about the new covenant starting at Calvary & including Jew & Gentile as one redeemed people of God. Bearing in mind that "covenant" & "testament" are used about 300 times in Scripture, please tell us what the correct understanding is. 

 

Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.  

[John81]

John - we have REPEATEDLY refuted Covenanter's claims over the course of many years.  We have been plenty patient with him.  He is not here to learn, he is here to push his false doctrine.

 

Regarding leaven - I gave two verses from the NT - including a passage from Mt. 16 where Jesus Christ Himself defines "leaven" as false doctrine. 

Once again, Covenanter's and Genevanpreacher's biases and "wacky interpretation" (a phrase borrowed from Covenanter!) is on clear display, and their propensity to COMPLETELY IGNORE SCRIPTURAL DEFINITIONS is on display as well.

The idea of what others read here was brought up to which I pointed out that such offers the perfect opportunity to post ones own understanding. With such postings readers could then examine both (or more) views themselves as they consider the verses put forth.

 

I've questioned Covenanter on certain points in past postings as well, yet if he brings up those points in this thread I can't rightly claim to be pointing out where I think he may be in error by simply saying I've said so in another post. It also does no onlooker any good to point out I've raised issue in other threads (unless I linked to that thread perhaps).

 

What others do when they read these threads I can't say. For myself, if I read threads with competing views I examine the biblical basis each side (or sides) put forth and then examine that by going to the Scriptures myself. Such an exercise is always edifying.

 

In discussions such as these, one would hope that if clear evidence comes forth to disprove anyone's position they would accept such. However, the point of putting forth contrasting points isn't typically to get another poster to change their mind, but to present all readers with the information and allowing the Lord to use it as He wills.

[Steve Schwenke]

Covenanter

The mustard seed does not grow into a tree.  A mustard plant can grow as tall as 15 ft high, and it resembles more of weed than it does a tree.  How in the world does a mustard seed turn into a TREE?  It does not!  Something went horribly wrong somewhere.  Whatever that thing is, it is a corruption - a gross corruption - of what God intended.

The Kingdom of Heaven CAN BE CORRUPTED, which is the answer to your own dilemma - how could the Kingdom Christ rules over end up being threatened by the Devil himself?  If our view of Rev. 20 is correct, that is exactly what happens - but it FITS the parables Christ gave us in Matt. 13.

Notice the continuity in the parables:

The sower sows the seed, but the birds take some, some don't take root, and some have shallow roots.

The sower sows the seed, but somebody else comes in and sows tares in the same field.  Somebody corrupted the field, and attempted to ruin the crop.

The Mustard seed somehow is changed from an HERB into a TREE (corruption.)

The woman mixes leaven - defined as false doctrine elsewhere - and the entire thing is ruined.

 

When I look at modern "Christianity" I don't see very much good.  The entire thing is corrupt - with the exception of a few faithful believers scattered here and there.  We are the "7,000" that have not caved in to modernism.  But 7,000 was a very small ratio of believers to non-believers in Elijah's day, and the ratio is still very small.

 

Finally, you said, that we have "disagreed" before, but I had not "refuted" you.

The truth is that everyone from my side of the aisle considers my "disagreements" with you as sufficient "refutation."  You are simply too proud to admit that your theology is WRONG.  You are most definitely UNTEACHABLE.   You reject ANYTHING that is contrary to your system out of hand, and then go on pretending that nOBody "refuted" you.  We have - you just refuse to accept the truth.

 

My "beef" with you is not over salvation by grace through faith available to all at this present time.  My issue with you is your Replacement Theology (which you deny you believe, but then assert that you believe), and your preterism.  You deny a literal interpretation of Scripture to avoid the truth of a coming literal Kingdom of Christ on this planet PRIOR to the New Heaven and New Earth.  You deny a literal rendering of Rev. 20, along with scores of other OT passages.  You deny a restoration of the Nation of Israel as God's covenant people.  You try to blend the covenants together. 

The biggest prOBlem with your entire system is that the only way you can make it work is by dismissing out of hand a literal rendering of the Bible.

 

You see, you try to make it look like you believe what we believe.  You don't.  You try to make the Jew and Gentile as "one people of God" BEFORE CALVARY - and it simply does not work.  Further, you deny a future restoration of the Nation of Israel under the ruling hand of Jesus Christ.  You insist on a "literal interpretation" of Matthew 13 (even though your "literal interpretation" overlooks some OBVIOUS THINGS!!!) but you deny a "literal interpretation" of Rev. 19 and Rev. 20. 

 

I have said all I am going to say - I have said all of this before in previous discussions.

Some things never change.

 

I agree with DaveW - you should not even be on this forum.  It is truly astonishing to me that you are even here, given the fact that the vast majority here strongly - and I  mean STRONGLY disagree with your doctrine.  You say you are here for "fellowship?"
Can two walk together except they be agreed? 

No - you have an agenda, and insist on pushing it night and day.

 

Goodbye.