New Covenant Theology Forum
Welcome to the New Covenant Theology forum. Feel free to post a message regarding New Covenant Theology, Housing, Iraq or any subject that is on your conscience .
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 9) |
| Author | Comment This topic is sticky |
Gary Anderson
 IP: 24.176.178.247 Aug 1, 05 - 7:01 PM |
Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
Re: Welcome to New Covenant Theology Forum A quote from Cliff Bjork of Searching Together: "I think you should also be more careful in dredging up and demeaning the names of God's servants from centuries past....there are enough real enemies of the faith to battle without attacking other believers who served God with the light they had. " I have no problem, Cliff, in dredging up and demeaning those who espouse covenant theology and those who advocated law preaching. And you know why? Because they don't understand grace. Now I can understand a young Christian maybe falling into covenant theology or dispensationalism for a time, but I cannot excuse, and God will not excuse those who used covenant theology to mislead thousands of deceived persons and governments. John Bunyan was aweful, and his theology was aweful, and I would not fellowship with him for a moment! Charles Spurgeon, that supposed peaceful guy did the same as John Owen did in Cromwell's time. That is Spurgeon defended the murderous Cromwell. It is clear to me Cliff, that you and John Zens have not come outside the camp to suffer with the saints when you refuse to call a spade a spade. Spurgeon and Owen and Bunyan were pillars of the false orthodoxy of their times. And sorry, Cliff, the 1646 London confession gave them light, they just refused to follow it! Charles Spurgeon had people go around his assembly while he preached the law looking for those who were distressed by his message. He used those men to add people to his congregation in a totally false operation that had nothing whatsoever to do with Acts chapter 2. Now Cliff, I have known that Jon Zens has refused to criticise these guys as being false teachers for 30 years. NOTHING has changed Cliff. Don't be so certain that your position is permitting you to suffer persecution outside the camp because in reality it is keeping you safely inside the camp of apostate religion. You understand the truth Cliff. All you have to do is do something about it. But I have waited 30 years Cliff, for Jon to do that very thing. How much longer do I have to wait? I give up. I emailed Jon the same. What is the point of waiting any longer? This is the bottom line Cliff, the gospel and all these precious truths that Jon Zens has gleaned from his brilliant studies and by use of a brilliant mind have always been a sort of hobby. What I mean is that when push comes to shove, Jon has never intended to separate from Christendom. He has always been about reforming the system rather than repudiating the system. If you guys do not have the strenght of gospel power inside to use what you know to condemn false religion, then I must assume you only know these things intellectually and not from the heart. If you knew them from the heart you would flee the Spurgeons and the Reisingers (John) of the world. But you don't. If you think writing this letter makes me happy you are off your rocker. I am distressed in ways you cannot understand. But write it I must. Gary Email: bgamall1@hotmail.com ICQ: http://bgamall.bravehost.com/ http://bgamall.bravehost.com/ |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 24.176.178.247 Aug 1st, 2005 - 7:05 PM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
I want everyone reading this to know that radical New Covenant Theology requires a separation from Covenant Theology and her teachers. It cannot be that covenant theology will be reformed from within. If you wash the sow it will return to its own vomit. So it is with those who are attached to covenant theologians and take them to be heroes and then try to reform the system and themselves. This is the bottom line, New Covenant Theology requires that we repudiate law preaching AND those who taught it! They are not brethren, they are the neo circumcision, the neo legalists. |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.30.132 Mar 17th, 2007 - 8:38 AM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
A person posted in my forum using my name. That post has been deleted. I am very open to free speech here, and want people to post their thoughts. But I cannot accept deception, and the fellow who posted under my name was either practicing deception or he was mistaken in the way he posted. If he wishes to post under his name he is more than welcome to return to the forum. |
|
mike white
IP: 70.232.155.212 Apr 11th, 2007 - 6:12 PM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
Gary, The Word of God is living. Revelation is progressive. We now should know more than those past. Those who follow us should know more than we. So we should learn and study the men of the past but not lean on them, but only lean on the Word. Unless you see outright deception in any man, it is wise and just to NOT denigrate him for his ignorance. It is the job of the Spirit to convict those who call upon Jesus of their inaccurate doctrine. If a man is alive, then you can certainly dialogue with him and maybe the Spirit will convict him of his erroneous position. mike |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.7.113 Apr 25th, 2007 - 10:04 AM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
Mike I agree with you in one sense, the elect continue learning. However, I do believe that the Protestants had knowledge that their teachings were legalistic, as did Spurgeon, and they refused to change. Bad sign, Mike!!! Here are some sources backing what I say from my website: http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/emaildebate.html regarding Johann Agricola http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/spurgeon.html |
|
Harry Dorrington
IP: 71.67.115.184 May 20th, 2007 - 8:52 AM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
There is a lot of discussion recently with the circles of those who claim to a New Covenant position of whether or no Christ had to obey the Old Covenant law so that His active obedience could earn us the righteousness required by the Law to obtain our release from the Law on the cross. Are you familir with this position and what Scripture do you go to for you position on this topic? Thanks, Harry |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 May 20th, 2007 - 8:14 PM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
Hello Harry. Second Peter 1:1 says that the righteousness of Christ is what saves us, and we obtain that righteousness as faith is reckoned as righteousness. True faith is a gift of God. Now, feel free to post here and give me the arguments of those who believe that Christ did not have to keep the law. But think about it, it was God's law in force at the time. He lived under the law. On the other hand, he offered a new law in the Sermon on the Mount. So, again post the argument that he did not have to keep the law. |
|
Harry Dorrington
IP: 71.67.115.184 May 21st, 2007 - 5:04 AM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
I don't believe any one is saying that He did not have to keep the law. The question is really did His law keeping earn Him righteousness to later impute to us or did His law keeping simply testify to His already righteous state? This is the question of imputed active obedience, a question that can be traced back to at least the 17th century. Does Christ by His active obedience fulfill the Covenant of Works? The logic behind the issue is: P1 Adam had to obey the terms of the covenant of works in order to obtain eternal life; P2 the thing promised in both covenants is the same (eternal life); P3 Christ is the Mediator between God and man. P4 The Mediator provides perfect satisfaction (for Adam’s sin) and complete obedience (fulfilling Adam’s duty). C1 Therefore, Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works. While some hold to the yes view of IAO without holding to the Covenant of Works, most see the Covenant of Works as the foundational issue. What say ye? Harry |
|
Gary Anderson
IP: 71.94.19.251 May 21st, 2007 - 10:31 AM |
Re: Post New Covenant Theology Issues Here
Well, at first glance, I can't see Christ needing to earn anything. Also, the Covenant of Works is the Old Covenant, not a pact made with Adam. Beyond that I don't have much to offer. Adam did not have to earn anything. He simply excercised his will apart from God to disobey one time. But again, feel free to respond so we can figure this out. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com