Understanding Hebrews -2

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

 

Yes, in THAT set of verses,  but not in Matthew 13.

[Steve Schwenke]

See my most recent post.

In Matthew 13, 75% of the seed does not yield good fruit.

In another parable, somebody came into the field and sowed tares in an attempt to ruin the crop.  some of it WAS ruined!

A mustard plant is an HERB, not a TREE - somehow that seed got corrupted, and is letting anything and everything in.

 

Leaven is defined by Jesus Christ as FALSE DOCTRINE.  I am sorry that you reject our Lord's definition of the word, as well as the definition Paul provided in Gal. 5:9. 

 

It fits the passage - the three parables I just listed gave examples of how the "kingdom" can be corrupted.  Why would you think this one would be any different. 

Christianity today is completely corrupt.  There are only small pockets here and there of true Bible Believing churches left. 

[Genevanpreacher]

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.

 

You very thoroughly have stated your 'belief', thanks.

 

You ever google mustard tree? Maybe you should.

 

Your 'translation' of the parables is lacking.

And I find fault in your 'reading the mind' of our Lord.

 

They are parables by the way, and do not rely on your 'own' interpretation to say what the Lord himself was saying.

 

I just get flabbergasted at the attitude of your teaching to others, sometimes.

I have stated my thinking on this chapter in Matthew, so if you want to know what I think, go back and read.

 

I think disagreements are likely to happen, even amongst the

'best' of preachers, of which I am sure you are.

 

I am sorry you don't have the freedom to ignore some of us. It might help your 'impatience' toward those that don't

follow your 'view' of the scriptures.

 

By the way, 'leaven of the Pharisees' is one thing, and 'leaven' by itself in a parable is another.

[Steve Schwenke]

 

 

I just get flabbergasted at the attitude of your teaching to others, sometimes.

I have stated my thinking on this chapter in Matthew, so if you want to know what I think, go back and read.

 

 

 

By the way, 'leaven of the Pharisees' is one thing, and 'leaven' by itself in a parable is another.

I have all the patience in the world for those who are honestly seeking the truth, and who WANT to be taught.  You and Covenanter are not here to LEARN but to thrust your poison on the rest of us.  I have no patience for that.

 

You are free to interpret "leaven" any way that you want - but I have proven my point, and you have not proven yours.

 

Check this out on mustard - looking at pictures is not the same as doing some research.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/399596/mustard

[Genevanpreacher]

See my most recent post.

In Matthew 13, 75% of the seed does not yield good fruit.

In another parable, somebody came into the field and sowed tares in an attempt to ruin the crop.  some of it WAS ruined!

A mustard plant is an HERB, not a TREE - somehow that seed got corrupted, and is letting anything and everything in.

 

Leaven is defined by Jesus Christ as FALSE DOCTRINE.  I am sorry that you reject our Lord's definition of the word, as well as the definition Paul provided in Gal. 5:9. 

 

It fits the passage - the three parables I just listed gave examples of how the "kingdom" can be corrupted.  Why would you think this one would be any different. 

Christianity today is completely corrupt.  There are only small pockets here and there of true Bible Believing churches left. 

 

Hello? Are you not 'reading' the same page?

 

Some verses are defined by themselves, and the parables in Matthew 13 are defined by themselves.

Not other verses in other chapters and other books.

 

Look up star in your bible and see examples of 'different' definitions.

There are plenty of things mentioned in scripture that do not define other places.

 

Surely if you went to seminary they atleast taught you that.

 

 

13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

13:31 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:

13:33 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.

 

I just don't see the clash here. The men are OBviously the 'Son of Man' like the verse in Matthew 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

And the woman is the church or whoever the woman is in Revelation 12.

 

Then we go on to the other parables in Matthew 13 - 

 

13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field

13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man

13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net

 

I guess those are a ungodly things too?  I disagree.

And lastly, as the Lord encourages his own - 

 

13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven

is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

 

The Lord was showing 'things that are honest and pure' in doctrine, not corruptions like the seed parable.

[DaveW]

To make it plain to even those who are trying desperately to misrepresent me.....

I have not called for anyone to be banned in this thread. No, I haven't. Go back and read it properly.
My primary input to this thread has been to state that non-IFB should not be leading studies on this site.

Participating is fine, but leading such is not.

[Invicta]

Dispensational teach is the private interpretation of one man.  You can check if you bother to read the history.  His name was John Nelson Darby.  

 

It was picked up by Scofield,put is HIS bible, and as they say these days, "went viral."

 

As you know, I disagree with preterist teaching either.

[DaveW]

Dispensational teach is the private interpretation of one man. You can check if you bother to read the history. His name was John Nelson Darby.

It was picked up by Scofield,put is HIS bible, and as they say these days, "went viral."

As you know, I disagree with preterist teaching either.

This is a lie.
You know it is a lie, for the issue has been proven many times in other threads.

Dispensational teaching was in existence before Darby or Scofield.
It is therefore impossible that they were the originators.

You need to stop repeating this lie which you know to be a lie.

That however has no bearing on whether or not it is scriptural.
Certainly the rubbish that some here call Dispensational is absolute trash.

[John81]

This is a lie.
You know it is a lie, for the issue has been proven many times in other threads.

Dispensational teaching was in existence before Darby or Scofield.
It is therefore impossible that they were the originators.

You need to stop repeating this lie which you know to be a lie.

That however has no bearing on whether or not it is scriptural.
Certainly the rubbish that some here call Dispensational is absolute trash.

I would very much like to know the proof of this. If it was posted on another thread I must have missed it.

 

Thank you.

[DaveW]

We have been over this - I have no prOBlem with him saying that it is was popularised by Scofield, or systematized by Darby, but the idea of dispensations is known historically well before Darby's time.

I do not have the information on my phone.... but it has been posted before.

And the existence or not prior to Darby is of no consequence as to biblical validity.

Again, the dispensationalism that some here talk of is plainly unbiblical.

[Steve Schwenke]

And this is the whole prOBlem with these threads with Covenanter. We go right back to the same old trash. Invicta pops in for the 15 billionth time to spread his lie that Darby "invented" dispensationalism. We have been over this before, but it never goes away. John pops in with his feigned ingorance on the subject and demands "proof" as if he has never heard arguments on this before. My goodness... nauseating

[John81]

And this is the whole prOBlem with these threads with Covenanter. We go right back to the same old trash. Invicta pops in for the 15 billionth time to spread his lie that Darby "invented" dispensationalism. We have been over this before, but it never goes away. John pops in with his feigned ingorance on the subject and demands "proof" as if he has never heard arguments on this before. My goodness... nauseating

I don't know how you got any idea of "feigned ignorance". I've not seen proof put forth that Dispensationalism was around prior to Darby. I've seen some put forth a few quotes to support the pre-trib rapture view from pre-Darby times but that's another subject.

[Genevanpreacher]

A coupla quotes from Larkins book on Dispy -

 

The "Preterist School"-originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A. D. 1614*[notice note below] . It limits the scope of the Apocalypse to the events of the Apostle john's life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the "Antichrist." The purpose of the scheme was transparent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the "Harlot Church" and the Pope from being called the "Antichrist." It is a view that is now but little advocated.

 

The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into OBlivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

 

So Jesuits started this mess?

 

[*Just a little 'eye opener' on this 'fact', in 1560 the bible notes were 'preterist'. That was a little before 1614.]

[Alimantado]

I don't know how you got any idea of "feigned ignorance". I've not seen proof put forth that Dispensationalism was around prior to Darby. I've seen some put forth a few quotes to support the pre-trib rapture view from pre-Darby times but that's another subject.

 

Yeah, it was discussed fairly recently, John. But there were follow-up questions and counter arguments that weren't responded to, so hardly settled.

[Covenanter]

Yeah, it was discussed fairly recently, John. But there were follow-up questions and counter arguments that weren't responded to, so hardly settled.

 

>This is a discussion from a year ago where many are claimed to be dispensationalists.

 

Note this extraordinary admission:

 

Steve Schwenke

That is what Walker and I are communicating.  We are not saying that the men he listed taught a system that was anything like what we teach today, but rather that there were similar elements within their body of teaching that fits into some areas of our teaching that today are considered uniquely "dispensational."  Watts idea of a restoration of Israel and a future millennium do not fit within the scheme of modern "covenant theology" teachings, but rather into the mold of modern "dispensational" teaching.   The words I have bolded should help you distinguish the main idea being advanced.