How can you read Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, etc. and say that?  Paul's entire ministry is built on the idea that God is now doing something different and new!

Perhaps I'm missunderstanding your point here, are you saying that the nation of Israel broke a covenant with God that they didn't agree to?
That it was forced on them?
Exodus 24
7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.”

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”

Dispensationalism is a newer man made theology.  Beloved by boomers for some reason.   Rapture theology itself stems from a young girl's fever dreams that Darby took to be prophecy of the end times.

Dispensationalists are the Springfield XD owners of the Christian world.  They do not understand how anyone shot a pistol before they had a labeled "Grip Zone", therefore any pistols that came before it are inferior.

You must think people are incredibly stupid.

Hint:

Fatalism: X will happen, utterly regardless of what you or anyone else does.  <---- this is exactly the strawman that you're burning here.

Biblical content: God has ordained that X will happen, and the means that will bring it to happen.

He planned that you would post that, and that you would want to, because of your own desires and sinful corrupted nature.  You did it why?

Because you wanted to.  God holds us responsible for doing things not because we have the power and actually will do any of hte options open to us. He holds us responsible because He is God, and he can.

He literally defines what responsibility is, he is NOT subject to your definition, or anyone elses'.

You know you are responsible for something *because God holds you responsible.*

If he says knowledge makes you culpable, it is not the knowledge that makes you culpable, it's the fact that God said that it does.

Do not make some ghost bigger than God that you subject him to.

Where do you find the stuff in bold at?

Dispensationalism is a popular and widespread way of reading the Bible. It originated in the nineteenth century in the teaching of John Nelson Darby and was popularized in the United States through the Bible Conference movement. Its growth was spurred on even more through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in 1909. Scofield’s Bible contributed to the spread of dispensationalism because it included study notes written from a distinctively dispensationalist perspective. The founding of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924 by Lewis Sperry Chafer provided an academic institution for the training of pastors and missionaries in the dispensationalist tradition. Some of the most notable dispensationalist authors of the twentieth century, including John F. Walvoord, Charles C. Ryrie, and J. Dwight Pentecost, taught at Dallas Seminary.

There you go again.  Complaining about what God preordained me to post.

But it wasn't a lie.  Far from it.  In fact it's so easy to prove it that it boggles the mind that anyone would fall for Calvinism.

Here's how it works.  All system followers will believe verses that appear to support their theology.

Case in point from a recent thread with one of your fellow Calvinists:

He quoted the passage including John 10: 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

He then asked, where is the "all" there?

At first I had no idea what he was talking about.  I said, the word "all" doesn't even appear in the verse.  Then I figured it out.  He thought I would treat the Bible the way Calvinists do and "interpret" the verse to say Jesus died for all men.

I corrected that immediately.  I told him I believe the verse EXACTLY as it is written.  THERE in THAT verse the Bible does not say that Jesus died for all, it says He died for His sheep.

Since THAT verse doesn't contradict Calvinism he doesn't have to "interpret" it to make it mean something other than what it says.

Then it was my turn to quote a passage:

1 Tim 2: 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Calvinists can't leave that passage alone and treat it like they treat the John 10 passage.

Why? Because it explicitly proves Calvinism to be false.  They don't believe the passage as written.

Case closed.

You refuse to exercise self control.

As soon as you see anyone say anything remotely reformed or calvinistic, you drop in and bear your axe, in hatred, trying to harm any reformed christian you can. It's like you want to show up and vomit acid and blood on anyone reformed.








And we, the unnatural branches were grafted onto the tree that is israel, that tree being the collection of all believers. Those who are not believers that were natural branches by physical descent (and again, gentiles came into the nation and became jews in the OT) are broken off.

It is God who decides who stays on that tree, and who is put onto that tree, and who does not belong there.




--------------

Your constant bitterness and hatred towards us is repellent and sinful.

Some are incredibly ignorant.

Calvinism IS fatalism.

Everything that happens is preordained.  EVERYTHING.

From the Calvinist confession AKA the Westminster Confession:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass

Whatsoever comes to pass - that means EVERYTHING - was unchangeably ordained to pass - from ETERNITY.

That means God preordains everything that comes to pass.

Like I said, Calvinists can't even follow their own theology.

So, this can't go anywhere or be of any use, if you don't quote, so we can go over it.

Yes, God is doing something different and new. He made the last and final sacrifice, that actually attains what it was given for (unlike the constant sacrifices in the ot that made nobody righteous). He is taking the light that was contained within the political borders and boundaries of ancient national israel and spreading it across the Globe, winning his sheep everywhere; it used to be you had to go to israel to get the light. He is preserving nations and peoplegroups that do not in any way deserve preservation (none of us do) in order to save all of his people from them.

Oh boy.

Now you play the victim card.

SOP for those who follow systems when their system is compared to the Bible.

You truly hate my guts for being reformed and not shutting up about it, don't you?

You intentionally clipped that part out of your quote and left it off. How deep in bitterness are you?

I would ask you to look and see HOW we say these things come to pass, but I think you hate us so badly that you *can't* anymore.

How can you see through the red curtains of blood?

You utterly refuse to acknowledge when people tell you "that is not what we believe, here, this is what we believe" ... no, we don't, according to you.

We have to believe what you say we do. It can't be any other way, or you couldn't hate us.

ETA: people who stick around notice these patterns and there are likely people who think me a fool for even trying to talk to you and get through your hardened bunker of a skull.

ETA2: nobody mentioned you. I don't for a second think OP was calling you out. Yet here you are, spraying bile. This happens in virtually any thread that the topic of reformed theology comes up that you didn't start.

Same..  

The word used in the Old Testament is not "covenant." Also, it wasn't translated direct from Hebrew; it was translated from a Latin translation. Using a 14th Century European word of a 4th Century Latin translation of a 5,000 year old Hebrew concept is not strong provenance. Certainly not strong enough to tie dogma to it.

Adam's choice doesn't oblige me to anything. His covenant is based on his choice. That's his choice; not mine. He may have made a covenant but that doesn't mean all of humanity signed on the dotted line. I never yielded my sovereignty to Adam. By what right does your version of God claim sovereignty over me, exactly? And if he has sovereignty over me, what does that mean to my God-given free will?

There's no need for you to speculate about things I haven't posted. If I want to say that all Hebrew translations are incorrect, I know how to do that. I am perfectly capable of expressing myself. Thanks all the same.

The fact that the word "covenant" wasn't used prior to the 1300's is a matter of verifiable fact.

This is transparent projection.

All is vanity.

Fear God, and keep His commandments.

You're the one that came in and started spraying hatred and bile when nobody mentioned you and OP wasn't calling you out and you do this virtually every single time one of these threads come up.

I wish you'd stop it and I bet others here think it too.

Doing the adult equivalent of "No I'm not, you are, nener-nener" doesn't change that. Your behavior is reprehensible.

ETA: and I suspect with the response quoted here, you are trying to protect your emotions and keep yourself from admitting you did something wrong.

Like I said, pure projection.

I discuss and criticize the DOCTRINES of Calvinism.

Calvinists, whose system is man made and carnal, often react carnally when their pet system is criticized, and then attack the critic of their pet system personally.

And BTW, that's not limited to Calvinists, that is the general response from followers of all man made systems when their beliefs are compared to the Bible.

And these types are so inconsistent.  When it's someone else's system that's criticized, they will jump right in and offer their critiques as well.  If this thread was about some other ISM, the Calvinist would criticize it, and then the recipient would claim that their critics are mean and hateful bashers.

SOP.

You're lying again.








^^^^ That's not criticism of doctrine.

Do you want me to go proper forum stalker and start finding your posts where you do this elsewhere?

You say we (individuals, humans, people) can't be corrected, but you won't listen to me at all.

You just work the reply button like a speed bag and blurt as if this was a game.

We can read your posts. We know you hate us, as people. You don't act anything like someone who thinks we are wrong and doing wrong and should be corrected, you act like someone who wants to bludgeon us into a pink mist. The fact that you won't even let me know what I believe and tell you ...

You give the kangaroo a run for his money.

Honestly I kind of love Crowley's posts in these types of threads. He comes in with a mallet and just clobbers everyone lol. I don't view it as hateful or spiteful, he's just following his deep knowledge and devotion to the scripture.

Yes it is.  All of those points pertain to Calvinist doctrine.

Here's a good one for you!

Jer 23: 29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?


That's what the Bible will do to all these man made systems.

I've never seen someone get their panties in such a twist over the Biblical concept that God is omnipotent.  

Finite godism I suspect.

I agree, for instance, the judicial laws of Israel are not for any particular nation or the church today except for the moral equity contained within them.

Their agreement was assured, it merely super-obligated them to perform the covenant. Essentially, much like an oath any of us might take super-obligates us to the performance of that oath. The alternative, is to believe that the Israelites could have sent God packing.  Sorry, we don't want to be your chosen people, go find someone else.

My point was specifically not to quote certain verses but to talk about overriding themes. A very obvious theme of multiple sections of the New Testament is about how God is no longer just dealing with Israel but has moved on from them to something greater.  Jesus himself talked about how his commandments go beyond what was given through Moses.  Paul's ministry to the Jews centered around how all the stuff in the old law was no longer relevant and he corrected those who wanted to hold on to it.  I don't think that it's a matter of throwing out the old, but more of replacing it with something better.

I have strong reservations about any theology that is primarily based on verses in the Old Testament and commandments and promises God made to Israel.  If it's not strongly supported in the New Testament as well then I question it.  A good example is post-millennialism--from what I can see it is mostly based on Old Testament scripture and any New Testament scripture is just a reference to those Old Testament scriptures. But it is not clearly and plainly taught in the New Testament.

If you don't see a very clear and distinct separation between what God was doing with Israel in the Old Testament and what God is doing with the church today then you will not accurately understand how Christians are to interact with the world today.

Hey now, I'm a boomer, and I don't like dispensationalism, but I get your drift.

I agree with you, yet there appears to be a growing movement that wants to go back and talk about The Law and about how we should be following it better, calling God Yahweh, calling Jesus Yeshua, etc.  I have spent time talking to people like that and even though it seems to be clearly contradicted by many passages in the New Testament they still find ways to explain it all away.

The KJV OT portion was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text, not from some Latin text. Modern English translations from the Hebrew, not Latin. You need to get a grip on your faulty ideas here. You are actually saying that every English translation of the OT is corrupt and wrong.

Concerning Adam, Paul would disagree. You need to carefully read Romans 5. Adam represented the race as it's head, just as Christ, being the second Adam, represents (to God) a redeemed race. The federal headship of Adam is plainly taught. When Adam sinned it plunged the whole of humanity into sin. The moment you were conceived you had a sin nature. It sounds to me like you are denying original sin, if so, that IS a damnable heresy. And now you are actually denying God's sovereignty over you? I don't believe the scripture teach some sort of free-will as you present it. Men are slaves to sin, that's all they do in their thoughts, words, and deeds. The unbeliever's very nature is utterly corrupted, read Romans 3. As for free-will, again, read for instance, Daniel 4, learn what the king of Babylon learned about God's sovereignty. God brushed away his will for 7 years and made him as a cow for his pride.

I've already conceded that the word "covenant" may not have existed until the 14th century. But that's basically irrelevant. Does the word convey an accurate meaning to the Hebrew or Greek, the vast majority of bible translators who do know Hebrew and Greek as scholars think so.

In the end, you are going to find out in full living color just how sovereign God really is over you...it's infinite.

No, I think he said Gershner called him a leaky dispensationalist.. remembering RC.

and ppl think Mac is tough with the Word of God should give Gershner a spin. Start with his series on The Westminster Confession of Faith

It's because the bible is right when it talks about man wanting to be God.

We want so very badly to reserve even a tiny slice of anything where we can be more powerful than God and control him.

It's basically the idea that God has different phases in His operation to redeem man.

One preacher I heard years ago said that if you emphasize what God says you'll be a Covenant believer, if you emphasize what He does you'll be a Dispensationalist.
This is false. Darby rejected that girl's ranting which contradicted itself. Many of the beliefs in Dispensationalism were already held by various Protestant groups and all Darby did was codify them into a system.  

A good book on that history , if you can find it.

*points at the post you're replying to*

Yes, there's a difference, and it is meaningful. The new and better thing jeremiah pointed at in chapter 31 has happened, and is being carried out.

Before the cross, those who believed on the coming messiah were saved on credit.

After the cross, those who believe on the messiah are saved on debit, off funds put into the bank.

And this has opened to spread across the face of the globe. And God blesses nations for his people's and his name's sake; a  blessing those nations don't deserve, and which we don't either.

Look at Acts 10, Colossians 2, and 1 Cor 7.

The young hot-headed but unwise males of the church are indeed trying to sort this mess out, and they don't know the dangers of sacralism, and they haven't yet had God sit them down in sack-cloth and ashes over the fact that romans 3 and genesis 3 apply to them too.

By sacralism, I mean  the idea that says church and state are to be tied together instead of separate entities in such a way that people within a geographical and political region are considered - or otherwise treated as - members of the state church, or the state religion.  Under this meaning of sacralism, the state viewed it as in it's own interest to punish people for not being a part of the state church or religion.

The either don't care, or don't realize that romans 13 is not just descriptive, it's prescriptive too. The sword is only given to the state, and the state only has the right to to use that sword against SOME kinds of moral evil *doing.* (not you might possibly do it) Nor does the state have the right to punish wrongthink. The reason we know this is because that was given to the church, and the church is not given the sword, and not allowed access to it.

The sword was given the state to punish the evildoers who the church was not given the keys to fight against without the use of the sword.

When we start mixing the two, disaster comes. History conforms to this. Over and over and over.

But we don't discuss how you know if a law is in ultimate true reality a law, or just something the state is enforcing. We don't teach people to subject that area to God.

If the state is only allowed to enforce against wrongdoing, AND the state is not allowed to define what moral right or wrong is, than any law they make that is not based on the real-true-ultimate reality that exists - that God defines what is right and wrong ... well, than that law is not a law.

It is merely the state telling you "Do it or you get the sword."

People inherently recognize and understand the category of "this is merely enforced, while that (given law) is the state punishing someone for doing evil."  

But we must be in utter subjection to God as to what is right and wrong.


ETA: At least a loudmouth slice of those same hot-heads also are making a horrid mess of the difference between race, and ethnicity, and that realm, as they try and reply to the almost unmitigated failures of multiculturalism. I hear and read things about their supposedly hidden social media accounts that make me think worse of them, but until we have solid proof, it will stay a rumor.  Some of them simply do not believe the bible is true when it says all men and all nations are of one blood from one man. Some may think they believe that, but until you apply it where it applies, equally - you are fooling yourself, and you need to apply romans 12 to your life. Work it out with fear and trembling and repentance. That is the process of the christian life.

I'm making some progress on this...

Before darby, there were not dispensationalists.

There were various different streams that would later be taken in and united by him.

The streams that combine to make a river are not that river.

Dispensationalism is the river that resulted from the combination.

This is a critical category error to avoid and it is very easy to trip into (I have this on the tip of my tongue because I have to remind myself of it from time to time).

No, just because someone used the word or the concept of a dispensation that does not make them a dispensationalist.

The waldensians were our christian brothers and sisters and shared many of our beliefs, but they were not reformed.

The early church in rome were not baptists, or presbies, even though they shared common beliefs with us.

This is a big dividing question--it surprises me that so many people would consider it controversial because it seems quite obvious to me what the Bible has to say about it, yet most people seem to find a way to ignore all that.  It's just another example of how powerful our natural impulses can be, if we want something to be true then we are very good at finding a way to rationalize it, and people in general are much more attracted to the idea that they can reconcile natural impulses and desires with God's will than to the idea that they must resist the flesh.

Samuel's warnings about "give us a king!" seem to get more pertinent by the day. We want the strongman to come save us.

Calvinism has nothing to do with God's omnipotence.

Quite the contrary.  The god of Calvinism is so impotent that man exercising choice thwarts that god.

The god of Calvinism can only handle things if he is the puppetmaster and men are his puppets.

The God of the Bible is omnipotent and He is quite able to handle giving men ability to make choices.

These references don’t exactly answer the question.

How about this? What law is this passage talking about:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;
— 1 Corinthians 15:56

My take is a bit different. God created the world for man, who is in His own image.  Christ came to save man from himself (sin) and in turn saved the world.

The nonsensical idea that Israel and the church are one and the same is instantly recognized as false by anyone who reads and believes the Bible.  (But when a person subscribes to a system and that system is the final authority for the person, he disregards the Bible in favor of the system.  That is how you end up believing nonsense.)

And we will see that now.

Here is what the Bible says about Israel:

Rom 10
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Do you see that?  Israel is UNSAVED.  Since when are unsaved people part of the church, the body of Christ?  THEY AREN'T.   The church is comprised of BELIEVERS who have trusted the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ.


2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Israel has a zeal of God, but no knowledge of Jesus Christ- in fact Israel REJECTED HIM.  The church KNOWS who Jesus is and believes on Him and has RECEIVED HIM.


3. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

Israel sought righteousness by law keeping.  Instead of letting the law be the schoolmaster to lead them to Christ, they actually believed they were keeping the law - they were self righteous: they established their own righteousness.. They were ignorant of God's righteousness.  The church is comprised of people who have received God's imputed righteousness. Unlike Israel, the church is not ignorant.

The idea that Israel and the church are one and the same is patently ridiculous to anyone who believes what the Bible says.

People who say Israel and the church are the same don't understand Israel, and they don't understand the church.

Obviously.

And so, the unbiblical belief that Israel and the church are the same is the foundation for covenant theology, and it falls flat on its face.

The scriptures I gave you deal with the ceremonial laws and dietary laws and their abrogation. Acts 10 with dietary laws, Col 2 with dietary laws and feast days in the OT, 1 Cor 7 with the ritual of circumcision. I would also add that God had the temple in Jerusalem destroyed...no more sacrifices...not required anymore.

The law, both moral and ceremonial, really any commandment of God ultimately stirs up sin in the heart of man because man is in rebellion against his God, we refuse and are unable to keep the law in perfection as God requires. The law has no power to change the heart of man, and ultimately brings the penalty of death to us. The law reflects God's righteous nature and we rebel. The sting of death is that we where meant to live in eternal fellowship with God, death is a fearful and unpleasant experience. The second death, hell, will be much much worse. We many times think lightly of our sins, God doesn't.

It's completely man made.

The law is one unit.  One covenant.  Break one point of it and the person is guilty of all of it.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

I don't think abrogation is the best word there ...

The laws were fulfilled, to a "T" and after being fulfilled they were no longer in force.

Because they were ... well ... carried out. Fulfilled.

If not replaced with a better law.

So the parts in Leviticus about incest no longer apply today?

Reformed people don't think National Israel and the church are the same. What we do believe is that within national Israel there was God's true religion and His OT saints, His church in it's infancy, under types and shadows, waiting for the reality of Christ. The true religion was administered differently than today. There is only one bride of Christ from Genesis to Revelation. Adam is in that church, Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David etc etc. hopefully you and me. There is one overarching covenant promise, the promise of a coming messiah, Jesus. God destroyed national Israel for their unfaithfulness, their general nation wide rejection of messiah. Paul in Romans 11 talks about God's renewal of national Israel, all within the context of His church. There is respectful debate within Reformed circles about the exact nature of that work of God concerning Israel, some like me believe it will probably have something to do with land promises, some don't. What many do believe is that a lot of Jews, maybe all will be converted to Christ, a great sign from God. We don't generally believe that Israel today is some fulfillment of a promise or prophesy, because the land promises were always related to Israel's faithfulness to God. Todays Israel is about as bad as it gets concerning faithfulness to Christ. Attack away.