You wrote,

"On the other hand, because of these threads, I have taken a look at covenant theology, and I notice two things: 1)It let's the Bible speak for itself; and 2) It is much simpler"

Trust me, Cbc, I desire to believe what the bible teaches and I would believe covenant theology without a whimper if it were true.

Please give me 3 examples from Scripture with a brief commentary for each where covenant theology is being clearly taught.

You say the bible speaks for itself on the matter and I am challenging you to prove it. It should not be difficult if it is as simple as you say.(I have given you an impossible task)

BTW, God did not say his intentions were to make everything simple but he did promise to teach the sincere seeker.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Lurker,
U have had several years to prove this hypothesis. No one on this board has stated their beliefs and then defended them in his own words more than I have. Most times you ignore what I say unless it chips away at the foundation of Calvinism, like the present discusssion does.

If you can prove any of my doctrines are based on assumptions, I will cease being dogmatic about them and will consider forsaking them. I do not hold opinions, I have convictions, and they hold me.

I am told to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. I have weighed your doctrinal system in the balances of Scripture and found that it is not only not good, it is wicked by my measure.

My last name should confirm your presumption.

\"unless a man is born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God\".

Donnie, responding to these verses in this comment of mine,

\"I believe Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. Why. you ask? because that is the exact words God uses to tell us for whom he died. 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world...

...Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly....

...Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

said this

\"JD...I can \"kinda\" see where you\'re coming from re: Jesus dying for the sins of the whole world.\"

and this;

\"For the life of me, I don\'t understand that some people have a problem with something that is soooooo clear in the Scriptures.\"

Then this later;

\"...but many, many more people who will, for some reason, not bow under what the Bible says on some things. If you have some knowledge of the Bible, you\'ve got to know what I\'ve talked about.\"

\"Romans 6,7,8. These verses are crystal clear regarding God doing the saving.\"

So then, DB, the foundation for dispesational thinking is the covenants of God wherin he has made his promises and has in the past, since making them, and is in the present, as well as the future, doing everything he is doing in a manner to keep every single promise he has made.
2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Heb 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us

7/23/07 9:13 PM:

"He did not die on the cross as God, he died as a man."

So explain to me how that is denying his deity, particularly since I have given explanation.

Lurker,

Once again you reveal your inability to keep up. My comments were clear that when Jesus was talking with Nicodemas the kingdom was not yet established. You do not have to take my word for it. You may read Mt, Mk, & Lk. The terminolgy "at hand" does not mean it is present. If one is to be born again to enter into it two things must be realized.
1) The agency for that new birth must be present
2) The kingdom must be present

Both of these things were realized because of the resurrection. The Spirit was given in Ac 2 and the kingdom was established in the hearts of the believers. The physical kingdom still awaits fulfillment.

The reason I have persued this subject is because of the very false Ordo Salutis that has regeneration ahead of justification. I am seriously attacking this false order and proving it Scripturally untenable.

See also: Ga 5:6; Ro 1:16, 2:9,10, 3:29,30, 4:11,12, 9:24, 10:12-15; 1Co 7:19, 1Co 12:13, Eph 3:5-10; Col 3:11 [TSK]

I have some questions for you Alan.

Do you have men & women restroom facilities in the church you attend?

Do you allow someone who has the appearance of being female to preach from your pulpit? (I know you teach there is no such thing as female)

Is there male & female, bond or free, Jew or gentile if one is not "in Christ"?

I am standing ready to help you and MurrayA and all others that desire to understand these truths but you must allow me to connect the dots for you. You haven't done so well and there is so much you do not understand. That is the reason for your confusion. I know these things and I can help you understand them but you must let me.

Your first and perhaps hardest lesson is to realize that you cannot spiritualize and allegorize the prophecies of God and you must learn that he means what he says. Just because one does not have the capability of answering everything logically is no excuse for denying them. This is where faith comes in and God is honored. Every jot and tittle of his word will be fulfilled and I do not want you standing over there with the goats with egg on your face when all is said and done and Christ sets up his kingdom.

Lets get started:

If you would like to exegete the Psalm and let us know how God is addressing original sin and the guilt of infants, knock yourself out. I will certainly read it and if it is edifying and true I will believe it.

There are reasons in the Psalm why I think it is addressing the antichrist prophetically. Given your predisposition to covenant theology though, commentary would be futile.

The real explanation of how God views sin, what makes one a sinner, and how God deals with it is not addressed in an obscure couple verses in the OT. It is adressed with precision and clarity in the epistles in the NT. You asked me how I viewed these 3 verses in the OT and I told you.

This is a trick question! However, the answer is yes. "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". What made them come short of the glory of God? A verb! They sinned! What does that imply before they sinned? "The wages of sin is death", we are told.

The difference, as far as our humanity is concerned, between us and Jesus Christ is the fact that he did no sin. That is a constant reminder to us in Scripture. However, he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.

Find a passage where a Christian says it and not a demon filled unbeliever, and I will buy into what you claim. It should not be hard for you, MurrayA says there are "dozens".

Do you believe just as strongly that these men "did contrary to the decrees of Caesar? (I don't) Apparently you think these baser sort are trustworthy and I want you to say you believe the apostles did contrary to the decrees of Caesar like they claimed!

MurrayA,
This is patently false and to prove it I will require only one statement from Scripture that says what you claim. If there are "literally (I sure didn't think you liked that word) dozens", it should not be hard to post one.

This is an example of hypocrisy:

Murray A said:

"So from one who normally likes to pride himself on 'just quoting the Bible' we have instead doctrines built on (naive) inference."

The subject we are discussing is the kingship of Christ. God has used this word king over and over. The point is that he knows the word "king". When MurrayA set out to prove his present kingship he referenced 4 passages (that I posted for him) and none of them used or even referred anywhere or in anyway in their entire context concerning kingship.

Now, someone please tell me if MurrayA has built a doctrine on naive inference and is guilty of that which he accused me.

I am sorry Abigail, but you seemed to have missed the whole conversation. We have not been discussing the spiritual and heavenly kingdom, we have been discussing the physical kingdom of Christ on the earth which is a theme of the OT prophets and the promise of the Davidic covenant found in 2 Samuel 7 and Psa 89 and referred to with additional information throughout the prophets and the Revelation.

Speaking of that covenant, we have these inspired words;

Ps 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
Ps 89:28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.
Ps 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

Here is the entire quote.

Sigh!

I wonder if it is JD who does not understand Hebrews and is trying to confuse the issues or is it the naysayers?

Try making these pronouns include gentile christians and say in what sense it "harmonizes".