Israel debunks Calvinism

[InSeasonOut]

Okay thanks for answering Invicta. I just know those verses and ones like it are misused and twisted to show replacement theology. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

...oh and if you don't mind me asking, are you a Calvinist? I would appreciate your response to my original post either way, on how Israel would or would not debunk
Calvinsim

[Alan]

Brethren,

Philip Mauro is a classic preterist. Using Philip Mauro as an example, Mauro uses 1 Peter 2: 9 as a pretext (according to my hastly counting of the references to 1 Peter 2:9 in his book, 'The Hope of Israel: what is it?) eight times to prove that God replaced the covenants given to Israel to the Church. 

I will give one quote (italicized and capitialized words are Mauro's; Mauro adds to the Authorized Version as he sees fit), "This additional (or substituted) covenant was made with the next succeeding generation following that which had broken of Horeb. It is very different in its terms, particulary in that those great promises - "ye shall be a particular treasure unto Me, ... and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation" - are entirely omittted. (These wonderful promises reappear in connection with God's new covenant people, the true "Israel," the "holy nation," I Pet. 2:9). The above quote is found on page 55, "The Hope of Israel: what is it?, by Philip Mauro

Also, please note: To the preterist, with Mauro as our example, the nation Israel in the bible is not "true Israel." Mauro, as most preterists, expain that the church is the 'true Israel.' Mauro changes the meanings of the words of the scripture as he sees fit. 

Alan

Edited May 23, 2017 by Alan
spelling italicize deleted doubled phrase

[InSeasonOut]

18 minutes ago, Alan said:

Also, please note: To the preterist, with Mauro as our example, the nation Israel in bible is not "true Israel." Mauro, as most preterists, expain that the church is the 'true Israel.' Mauro changes the meanings of the words of the scripture as he sees fit. 

From what ive seen and remember, this sounds a lot like Steven Anderson (which gives IFB's a bad name). He openly teaches replacement theology.

But for sake of time relevance to this thread, ill quickly mention that the "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31 would suffice in debunk replacement theology. The church does not get in on this, as its strictly for Israel (Romans 9:4). Is there a thread here that on the new covenant or rep. theo? Still new...

[DaveW]

1 hour ago, Invicta said:

No I was not supporting replacement theology.  I was just showing that as G|od chose Israel, he also chose his church.

 

3 hours ago, DaveW said:

You are often not "clear" and often complain that you are misunderstood - so how about you make it clear and state PRECISELY what you mean by quoting that verse?

And while you are at it, how about you explain PRECISELY what you are referring to with the two new verses, rather than letting us speculate and then complaining that you are wrongly accused?

 

I know what the verses say - what you use them for is anybodies guess, going on your past use of scripture.

[InSeasonOut]

Just now, DaveW said:

[Alan]

 

Just now, InSeasonOut said:

From what ive seen and remember, this sounds a lot like Steven Anderson (which gives IFB's a bad name). He openly teaches replacement theology.

But for sake of time relevance to this thread, ill quickly mention that the "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31 would suffice in debunk replacement theology. The church does not get in on this, as its strictly for Israel (Romans 9:4). Is there a thread here that on the new covenant or rep. theo? Still new...

InSeasonOut,

The first link is to a thread on Covenant theology and is based on Jeremiah 31:31-34

You are correct. The preterists and Steven Anderson are both proponants of replacement theology. And, you are also correct in that Anderson is giving the IFB' s a bad name.

Alan

[DaveW]

4 hours ago, InSeasonOut said:

He keeps telling us that he is not a Calvinist, but he often sounds like one.

He also keeps telling us that he is not a replacement theologist, but he often sounds like one.

If only he would explain himself properly the first time, then we wouldn't mistake him.............. 

[Invicta]

17 hours ago, DaveW said:

He keeps telling us that he is not a Calvinist, but he often sounds like one.

He also keeps telling us that he is not a replacement theologist, but he often sounds like one.

If only he would explain himself properly the first time, then we wouldn't mistake him.............. 

Only to the ignorant.  

[DaveW]

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

Only to the ignorant.  

Now, I fully expect you to be rude to me, and I don't care, but I am not the only one who questioned your meaning with these posts, so unless you are accusing several others here of being ignorant, maybe you should back off a little and take some advice - such as EXPLAINING YOURSELF CLEARLY instead of posting random verses and expecting everyone else to know what you are referring to.

My first post here asked you to do just that, but instead of responding properly you showed no respect and answered with a jibe.

Then you accuse me and others here of ignorance.......

You really are arrogant.........

[Invicta]

12 hours ago, DaveW said:

Now, I fully expect you to be rude to me, and I don't care, but I am not the only one who questioned your meaning with these posts, so unless you are accusing several others here of being ignorant, maybe you should back off a little and take some advice - such as EXPLAINING YOURSELF CLEARLY instead of posting random verses and expecting everyone else to know what you are referring to.

My first post here asked you to do just that, but instead of responding properly you showed no respect and answered with a jibe.

Then you accuse me and others here of ignorance.......

You really are arrogant.........

I apologise.

But you are hardly one to accuse others of being rude and arrogant.

[Ukulelemike]

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:52 PM, Alan said:

 

InSeasonOut,

The first link is to a thread on Covenant theology and is based on Jeremiah 31:31-34

You are correct. The preterists and Steven Anderson are both proponants of replacement theology. And, you are also correct in that Anderson is giving the IFB' s a bad name.

Alan

Steve Anderson is just a symptom-he comes from a line of IFB's who give IFB a bad name. The Masters and Commanders of their churches who rule with an iron fist, who declare anyone who disagrees with him to be a heretic, anyone in error or misspeaks to be unsaved and hellbound. Hyles, Schaap, Ruckman, Anderson-their errors may differ, but they are cut from the same cloth: trying to be IFB popes of their own little worlds, and declaring all others to be hereticks and ready for the stake.

[InSeasonOut]

Yeah Ruckman has many faults, but i wouldn't list him with the other 3 =

[jamesduncan]

Israel debunks Christians tooo

Arafat was married to a Christian

  Rabbi David Rosen is a talented and respected rabbi, originally from the UK.

Since in some circles it seems to be more encouraged to spit on Christian

 clergymen than build bridges (this week's events in the Old City), Rabbi Rosen

 is unpopular with Eskin and his ilk.

 http://tinyurl.com/9rt8yn4

  It has been Jerusalem's dirty little secret for decades:  Orthodox yeshiva

students and other Jewish residents vandalizing churches and spitting

on Christian clergyman as they walk along the narrow, ancient stone streets

of the Old City.

http://tinyurl.com/v7dbq

 Christians say ultra-Orthodox Jewish students spit at them or at the

 ground when they pass. There have also been acts of vandalism against

 statues of the Virgin Mary.

 http://tinyurl.com/8g3zxwo

 Google “spitting on Christians” and tell us what you find?

You cannot find one incident where Muslims spit on Christians but you can find countless incidents

where Orthodox Jews spit on Christians. Has the American press ever covered the above-?

 N0, can you?

Edited June 3, 2017 by jamesduncan