Comments on: Christian Identity – Part VI – The Believers Power http://codybateman.org/2009/11/02/identity-5/ Ardent American Patriot and Lover of Israel Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:48:13 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Shawn Beaty http://codybateman.org/2009/11/02/identity-5/comment-page-1/#comment-1287 Shawn Beaty Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:04:55 +0000 http://codybateman.org/2009/11/02/identity-5/#comment-1287 That is a very poor explanation of Covenant theology. To say it is not Biblical is absurd. I could understand you saying you do not agree with it, but saying it is un-Biblical shows your lack of understanding. Of course you know that dispensational theology is not even 200 years old, none of the church fathers or reformation hero's were held to dispoensational theology. Men like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, J.I Packer, RC Sproll, N.T. Wright are un-Biblical? . You may disagree with the reading/interpretation of scripture, but to use the word un-biblical shows how arrogant and uninformed you are. Editorial note: I wrote Mr. Beaty directly (he apparently is a Pastor at a reformed fellowship in souther California). The term "unbiblical" means what it says; "the teaching of a doctrine not found in scripture." "Replacement Theology", promoted by the reformers and much later, Sproll, Kennedy and Packer; relies heavily on "allegorical interpretation" of scripture versus a "literal interpretation." This is the only way these "teachers" can wrongfully claim that the Book of Revelation was written and fulfilled BEFORE 70 A.D. Not only is this poor interpretation of God's Word - it seeds doubt that the very promises God declares to both Israel and the believer - as being doubted! Even worse, it allows all sorts of unbiblical doctrine to be promoted based on the teacher's "allegorical" view of, what otherwise to be, literal declarations of God. That is a very poor explanation of Covenant theology. To say it is not Biblical is absurd. I could understand you saying you do not agree with it, but saying it is un-Biblical shows your lack of understanding. Of course you know that dispensational theology is not even 200 years old, none of the church fathers or reformation hero's were held to dispoensational theology. Men like Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, J.I Packer, RC Sproll, N.T. Wright are un-Biblical? . You may disagree with the reading/interpretation of scripture, but to use the word un-biblical shows how arrogant and uninformed you are.

Editorial note: I wrote Mr. Beaty directly (he apparently is a Pastor at a reformed fellowship in souther California). The term “unbiblical” means what it says; “the teaching of a doctrine not found in scripture.” “Replacement Theology”, promoted by the reformers and much later, Sproll, Kennedy and Packer; relies heavily on “allegorical interpretation” of scripture versus a “literal interpretation.” This is the only way these “teachers” can wrongfully claim that the Book of Revelation was written and fulfilled BEFORE 70 A.D. Not only is this poor interpretation of God’s Word – it seeds doubt that the very promises God declares to both Israel and the believer – as being doubted! Even worse, it allows all sorts of unbiblical doctrine to be promoted based on the teacher’s “allegorical” view of, what otherwise to be, literal declarations of God.

]]>