The "Great Commission".

[UGC]

So, UGC, don't be so hard on them. They are good guys I'm sure, who love the Lord, and try to do right just like we do.

I hear you, but digging your heels in and showing someone an opposing view without trying to butter them up first is not being hard on them.
If it is, they were probably spoiled as kids and should realize these interactions won't kill them.

Especially when they come in with such massive arrogance built on ignorance of knowledge that is their own responsibility to know from the scriptures, yet they claim to know it all while putting down all Dispens by spouting embarrassing statements like "all that stuff is Dispen baloney, not found in the Bible". Sometimes people like this need to be humbled by the word of God (notice how post #69 is almost ALL Bible, barely any of my own words).

These "anti-Dispens" are either blatant disinfo agents or they just got sold some popular narrative by some famous Covenant Theologian in "McDonald's Christianity" with a 90 IQ about Dispensationalism and actually believed it. You wouldn't believe the videos going around blatantly lying about Dispen saying things like "Darby invented it". Now so many people actually believe that garbage.

Satan is attacking Biblical truth through these proud ignoramuses and they must be dealt with to shift the overton window. Dispens like Ryrie were far too nice, I believe God sent in his patient and gentle servants first, but when people don't listen for so long, it's time to turn up the heat.

Megachurch Christianity's overton window's shifted too far into lazy conglomeration of the scriptures:

The closest theological system of which we have to understanding it is Dispensationalism, which by the way Google and Wiki also misrepresents to a certain degree because Dispensationalism is not as clean-cut as dividing the Bible into "Dispensational Ages" neither does it replace Covenants with Dispensational Ages.

 

[treasure_unseen]

No, "treasure_lost", Paul was quoting Moses:

De 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Paul was referencing Abraham. Abraham didn't need to obey the words in Deut 10:16.

Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Rom 4:12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

 

[illinoisguy]

We are already in the Kingdom, see posts #24 and #30. "Then cometh the end, when [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. . . . " 1 Corinthians 15:24. Nothing there or anywhere else in the Bible about us going into another kingdom, or going into the kingdom for the first time, when Christ returns.

Dispensationalists believe that Christ flubbed the mission and failed to bring in the Kingdom at His first advent, so they are waiting for Him to return and give it another try. The Bible teaches that Christ succeeded in His mission to bring in the Kingdom, the first time around. Christ will return someday to deliver up the already existing Kingdom to God the Father, not to tidy up unfinished business from His first coming by setting up the kingdom.

I hold to the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith and am not a covenant theologian, but if people want to believe that I am, that's okay. I've been called worse things by better people.

 

[treasure_unseen]

And then there's this:

Jer 9:25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

"treasure_lost" has missed the entire point of what Paul is telling the Jew because he, and many others, have been taught on purpose to not "rightly divide" the scriptures and thus the truth is hidden from them.

So, UGC, don't be so hard on them. They are good guys I'm sure, who love the Lord, and try to do right just like we do.

There is no "new birth" in the OT. Yes, I understand it makes it all easier to just lump it all together.

Well. You can believe the Scripture or you can believe Scofied or the like.

The godly Jews had the "circumcision of the heart" if they obeyed God, and those that didn't were just like Gentile dogs.

Nonsense. By the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified. That was true for Israel is true for anyone. God never choose the law to justify anyone. That is blaspheme.

Those of us who are saved and in the Body of Christ (Jew or Greek) have the "circumcision of Christ", Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Abraham was circumcised in the foreskin in heart. A reference to the new birth.

 

[treasure_unseen]

We are already in the Kingdom, see posts #24 and #30. "Then cometh the end, when [Christ] shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. . . . " 1 Corinthians 15:24. Nothing there or anywhere else in the Bible about us going into another kingdom, or going into the kingdom for the first time, when Christ returns.

Dispensationalists believe that Christ flubbed the mission and failed to bring in the Kingdom at His first advent, so they are waiting for Him to return and give it another try. The Bible teaches that Christ succeeded in His mission to bring in the Kingdom, the first time around. Christ will return someday to deliver up the already existing Kingdom to God the Father, not to tidy up unfinished business from His first coming by setting up the kingdom.

I hold to the 1833 New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith and am not a covenant theologian, but if people want to believe that I am, that's okay. I've been called worse things by better people.

I'm neither but that confession is closer than any form of Dispensationalism.

I've said it for many many years. Dispensationalism will make you stop and think. In that, it is good. However, it is not remote true.

 

[UGC]

Dispensationalism will make you stop and think. In that, it is good. However, it is not remote true.

Did anyone stop and think about post #69 yet. Or is it "too many paragraphs".

Should I make an instant oatmeal format? It would match your style. After all, Covenant Theology is the instant oatmeal format of the Bible.

 

[treasure_unseen]

. . .That is Covenant Theology! It is one form of it.

There are just disagreements among Covenant Theologians on the number of Covenants.
"New Covenant Theology" is one view: and look at the last 2 words in its 3-word title: "Covenant Theology". Are you kidding me

You didn't even know it existed. You're the one that lied. Not me. They are substantial differences between New Covenant Theology and Covenant Theology. I don't expect an unskilled novice like yourself to understand. You are untrained, uneducated and uninformed. Yet, you pretend you're a leader of the blind. We know how that ends.

That is an extreme statement. And an arrogant one. It's like you think you are the only one out of every called person at any seminary who can see truth.

I never said mine was perfect. You're the one claiming you perfected Dispensationalism. How arrogant is that in comparison? You don't know you're own arrogance. You can't help anyone.

While it may be true that everyone will most likely end up with a slight variation of the existing theological systems, to deny all systems is to say God never used any of the called men who put in all that ground work at any of the seminaries around the world, and only decided to use the special snowflake that is "treasure_unseen".

I teach what the apostles and prophets teach. I answer to Jesus Christ. I could care less what any other man has to say. I've already have a Master. I refuse to allow another to rule me.

And you continue to ignore John 7:38-39. Do explain to us all what this passage means.
Or ignore it just like you ignore that the Holy Spirit departed from Saul.

There goes "I only believe the Truth, everyone else is wrong except me". If you really believed the truth, you'd shift and correct yourself constantly to align yourself with it. Someone who rarely changes their position during the learning process is usually arrogant and stubborn, and his pride and need to be right supersedes the truth.

There is zero evidence that anyone in the OT was regenerated with a new spirit birth in the spiritual Body of Christ.

Abraham rejoices to see Jesus's day. Saw it and was glad. Abraham was born again. Not only him, but all those who were birthed in the family of God throughout all ages of men by the Holy Spirit.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Did anyone stop and think about post #69 yet. Or is it "too many paragraphs".

Should I make an instant oatmeal format? It would match your style. After all, Covenant Theology is the instant oatmeal format of the Bible.

I haven't read #69 that I can remember and I'm not going back to do so. You endless refuse to go line by line, precept upon precept in our interactions. You leave many things unanswered. I'm not going to indulge your actions while you refuse to do the same.

 

[UGC]

I haven't read #69 that I can remember and I'm not going back to do so.

Oh, of course you can't. It would cause you cognitive dissonance and perhaps a midlife crisis because you'd suddenly see you were wrong this whole time.

The problem is, everyone else already knows you're an ignorant troll clown because of post #69, so you don't have to.

We are already in the Kingdom

Notice the arrogance of the Covenant Theologian.

"I'M IGNORING ALL OF THOSE VERSES FROM ISAIAH, MICAH, JEREMIAH, HEBREWS, REVELATION, ETC. BECAUSE I FOUND THIS ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SEEMS TO GET RID OF THEM.

I HAVE MY THEORY. IT'S SIMPLE. DON'T DISTURB ME."

 

[treasure_unseen]

Oh, of course you can't. It would cause you cognitive dissonance and perhaps a midlife crisis because you'd suddenly see you were wrong this whole time.

The problem is, everyone else already knows you're an ignorant troll clown because of post #69, so you don't have to.


Notice the arrogance of the Covenant Theologian.

"I'M IGNORING ALL OF THOSE VERSES FROM ISAIAH, MICAH, JEREMIAH, HEBREWS, REVELATION, ETC. BECAUSE I FOUND THIS ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SEEMS TO GET RID OF THEM.

I HAVE MY THEORY. IT'S SIMPLE. DON'T DISTURB ME."

See the dishonesty.......He wants someone to else answer every line he posts and yet, he refuses to do the same.

I've argued with dispensationalists for close to 30 years. Some of the best. You're not even a toddler in understanding when it comes to dispensationalism.......

I know... I know.... you've perfected it though.

That's what little kids do. They think they know more than they do.

 

[UGC]

Instant Oatmeal Version:


Rev. 21:10-26. Please tell us, all-knowing ones capable of twisting and erasing entire passages,


Is that Kingdom here yet? (Notice the large font to successfully grab the ADHD attention span of those who fear whole paragraphs, like the cover of a cereal box at Walmart for your Walmart Christianity)

 

[UGC]

I know, I know. You're embarrassed after post 91 (right above this one).

Dispensationalists believe that Christ flubbed the mission and failed to bring in the Kingdom at His first advent

No we don't. His mission was not to bring the Kingdom of Heaven right away, but simply to offer it (THE PHYSICAL KINGDOM THAT DESCENDS TO EARTH IN REV. 21) and THEN to reveal the Mystery Kingdom of God (Spiritual Body of Christ) after offering Israel the Kingdom of Heaven because he was anticipating Israel to reject him, yet he still made the offer first. WHY?

BECAUSE HE DOESN'T TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S FREE WILL, YET HE PLANS FOR IT.

 

[UGC]

You didn't even know it existed. You're the one that lied. Not me.

...What is it now, who's lying again? Did I say I didn't know New Covenant Theology existed?

I'm pretty sure I posted a video here explaining the differences between 1689 Federalism and New Covenant Theology before.

That's what happens when you lie.


By the way, jumping back to post 92 above after that side note just like God will jump back to dealing with Israel in the 7-year Trib, one of the biggest things God was trying to show humanity with his first advent was that he respects people's free will to believe in him or reject him. He knew Israel was going to reject him (WHICH THEY OBVIOUSLY DID ALL THE WAY UP TO STEPHEN'S STONING) yet he still offered them the Kingdom of Heaven because it was just and right for him to do so.

He had to give them a chance, yet he respected their decision to reject him the first time. This flies in the face of every Covenant Theologian and Calvinist twister of scripture who tries to enforce their limited, unscriptural, boxed-in view of God onto the scriptures which do not present him in any such light.

 

[treasure_unseen]

...What is it now, who's lying again? Did I say I didn't know New Covenant Theology existed?

I'm pretty sure I posted a video here explaining the differences between 1689 Federalism and New Covenant Theology before.

That's what happens when you lie.

You're the one that said that there were only two choices. I didn't say that. You did. I'm not the liar.

Herb.... Is that you?

I don't watch your videos and it is rather apparent you don't know New Covenant Theology.

 

[treasure_unseen]

I know, I know. You're embarrassed after post 91 (right above this one).

No we don't. His mission was not to bring the Kingdom of Heaven right away, but simply to offer it (THE PHYSICAL KINGDOM THAT DESCENDS TO EARTH IN REV. 21) and THEN to reveal the Mystery Kingdom of God (Spiritual Body of Christ) after offering Israel the Kingdom of Heaven because he was anticipating Israel to reject him, yet he still made the offer first. WHY?

BECAUSE HE DOESN'T TAKE AWAY PEOPLE'S FREE WILL, YET HE PLANS FOR IT.

What utter nonsense. Abraham looked for the Kingdom long before this.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

 

[treasure_unseen]

Instant Oatmeal Version:


Rev. 21:10-26. Please tell us, all-knowing ones capable of twisting and erasing entire passages,


Is that Kingdom here yet? (Notice the large font to successfully grab the ADHD attention span of those who fear whole paragraphs, like the cover of a cereal box at Walmart for your Walmart Christianity)

I know you think you've won. I know you think you're defeating all those bad people.

Problem is.... you're fighting against the Word of God. You're going to lose.

Paul called this an allegory.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Do you see the words "Jerusalem which is above"?

The words you read in Revelation 21 is an allegorical reference just as Paul detailed in Galatians chapter 4.

Question. I don't expect you to answer because the answer defeats your theology.

Do you really expect a literal Jerusalem with gates?

Just why would this perfect literal city need gates?

 

[Twisted]

The words you read in Revelation 21 is an allegorical reference just as Paul detailed in Galatians chapter 4.

Question. I don't expect you to answer because the answer defeats your theology.

Do you really expect a literal Jerusalem with gates?

Just why would this perfect literal city need gates?

Yes.

The reasons are all right there. Rev. 22 helps give more clarity.

I think it would be hilarious if "treasue_lost" lived next door to UGC in the New Jerusalem!

 

[treasure_unseen]

Yes.

The reasons are all right there. Rev. 22 helps give more clarity.

I think it would be hilarious if "treasue_lost" lived next door to UGC in the New Jerusalem!

Hell has gates. There is a reason for this. So you expect this "perfect literal Jerusalem" to have the same?

I don't see the reason for the gates in Revelation 22. Please elborate.

I know you really believe your king from the 1600s.... but we're not going to have condos or mansions in the Kingdom of God. I'm not going to get weary and have to sleep. Nor am I going to hide away somewhere and watch TV. Its not going to storm so I don't need shelter.

I don't believe you've ever really given this much thought at all.

 

[UGC]

The words you read in Revelation 21 is an allegorical reference just as Paul detailed in Galatians chapter 4.

LOL!

So you're telling me Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Hebrews, and Revelation, from OT to NT, are all describing an ALLEGORICAL Kingdom that God decided to describe IN THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL:

Rev. 21:1-25:
"10...that great city ("city" is an allegory?), the holy Jerusalem (pretty sure "Jerusalem" is a real place), descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates (THAT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC).
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof (WHY ARE THEY MEASURING A CITY THAT ISN'T REAL?).
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel (I'M SURE NOAH'S ARK WAS AN ALLEGORY TOO, IT WAS REFERENCED BY MEASUREMENT IN CUBITS).
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof (I'M SURE THE LORD BEING THE LIGHT IS AN ALLEGORY TOO, HE'S PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUN, YAY NEW AGE).
24 And the nations (ALLEGORY I'M SURE) of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth (ALLEGORICAL KINGS, RIGHT) do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there (ALLEGORY, I'M SURE, THERE'LL BE LITERAL NIGHT BECAUSE THIS DAYTIME IS ALL ALLEGORY, AS IS THE CITY ITSELF, AND JERUSALEM, AND THE LORD BEING THE LIGHT THEREOF)."


And yet Covenant Theologians have the gall to tell us we're not believing the Bible. You are clearly twisting or ignoring it to fit your PRIVATE THEORY. NOWHERE DOES PAUL SAY THIS KINGDOM IS AN ALLEGORY.

 

[Twisted]

LOL!

So you're telling me Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Hebrews, and Revelation, from OT to NT, are all describing an ALLEGORICAL Kingdom that God decided to describe IN THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL:

Rev. 21:1-25:
"10...that great city ("city" is an allegory?), the holy Jerusalem (pretty sure "Jerusalem" is a real place), descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates (THAT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC).
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof (WHY ARE THEY MEASURING A CITY THAT ISN'T REAL?).
16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.
17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel (I'M SURE NOAH'S ARK WAS AN ALLEGORY TOO, IT WAS REFERENCED BY MEASUREMENT IN CUBITS).
18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.
19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;
20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolyte; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.
21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.
22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof (I'M SURE THE LORD BEING THE LIGHT IS AN ALLEGORY TOO, HE'S PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUN, YAY NEW AGE).
24 And the nations (ALLEGORY I'M SURE) of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth (ALLEGORICAL KINGS, RIGHT) do bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there (ALLEGORY, I'M SURE, THERE'LL BE LITERAL NIGHT BECAUSE THIS DAYTIME IS ALL ALLEGORY, AS IS THE CITY ITSELF, AND JERUSALEM, AND THE LORD BEING THE LIGHT THEREOF)."


And yet Covenant Theologians have the gall to tell us we're not believing the Bible. You are clearly twisting or ignoring it to fit your PRIVATE THEORY. NOWHERE DOES PAUL SAY THIS KINGDOM IS AN ALLEGORY.