User Tag List

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 343

Thread: The essential irrationality of Dispensationalism

  1. #16
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi and there is much more than what I wrote !!

    Gal 4:10 means that the Galatians were already in the PRESENT TENSE / PARATERO were OBSERVING Days , and Months , and Times and Years which all Jews did in their Worship !!

    This means there OBSERVING these things during UNDER the Dispensation of the Grace of God was wrong as the Mosic Law was just to be FAZED OUT as 2 Cor 3:13-16 says !!

    Care to comment on 2 Cor 3:13-16 , come on DOOOOOOOOO IT !!

    dan p




    They were practicing the old covenant, not the new! There is no such ritual in the new, and there is no future new covenant for israel where the old rituals are "done right."
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  2. #17
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    5,043
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 532 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192505
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They were practicing the old covenant, not the new! There is no such ritual in the new, and there is no future new covenant for israel where the old rituals are "done right."

    Hi and no comment on 2 Cor 3:13-16 ??

    Do not blame you as anti -dispensationalist have no answers that make sense !!

    dan p

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to DAN P For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 28th, 2017)

  4. #18
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Quote Originally Posted by DAN P View Post
    Hi and no comment on 2 Cor 3:13-16 ??

    Do not blame you as anti -dispensationalist have no answers that make sense !!

    dan p




    Yes DanP people still read the old covenant to this day, veiled. It needs to be read in Christ.

    What did you think would stop me in my tracks?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  5. #19
    Silver Member SaulToPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    17,873
    Thanks
    2,898
    Thanked 18,247 Times in 10,751 Posts

    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147790
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    But more directly, the Jews were under the first covenant and many other people under similar rules, making Paul create the expression in Col 2 and Gal4, the 'weak and miserable elements of the world' when referring to it.

    Even if you don't see Israel as an example of what would happen, it does not change that the new covenant was put in effect by Christ the Covenant for us. He is our representative. God treats us as though him. This is why it sounds that way in the gospel accounts in both Corinthian passages and why it is the eternal covenant.

    The obsession with Israel and the land misses the magnificence of it. And turns the Bible into a chopped up irrelevance in which some inside clique determines which books are for us or not.
    All made up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    They can't compete with a real writer and grammar scholar
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    You're too literal to get it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    The New Covenant preceded the Old Covenant.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to SaulToPaul For Your Post:

    Tambora (September 1st, 2017)

  7. #20
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    wow STP (Mr. Make Up) is back. RD will be so happy. He seems to have forgot how to write 'made up'. Dusty rose today?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  8. #21
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Apparently there's nothing worth copying from STP today.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  9. #22
    Over 5000 post club
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    5,043
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 532 Times in 408 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    192505
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    Yes DanP people still read the old covenant to this day, veiled. It needs to be read in Christ.

    What did you think would stop me in my tracks?

    Hi and 2 Cor 3:13-16 for one !!

    Where is there a ONE GOSPEL in Rom 5:14 ?

    How Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 ?

    Where the B O C began ??

    How you were saved with verses and I see at least 4 verses that explain how people are saved under Grace ?

    dan p

  10. #23
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    7,821
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 2,671 Times in 1,756 Posts

    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1720998
    Quote Originally Posted by Interplanner View Post
    STP is looking forward to the day when the Levitical sacrificial system is practiced exactly as it is supposed to be, (in the unintended compliment of D'ism thread). that is the opposite of what Hebrews says. I therefore believe D'ism to be as irrational as the secular social scientist who says "male and female genders are just social constructs to be overthrown."
    STP's statements, however accurately or twisted you might present them, do not define dispensationalism.
    Dispensationalism does not look forward to the day when the Levitical sacrificial system will be practiced at all. There is no longer any need for the blood of lambs and bulls because Christ shed His blood. When the substance has come, the symbolic is no longer needed. We learn this in a book that was addressed to Jews.

    You want me to believe that Hebrews is only for Jews.
    No, only that it was addressed to Jews. We know this by the very complex and intellectually taxing act of reading the book's title.

    Then you want me to believe that the new covenant is only for Jews. then, even though no one can miss that the new covenant in Christ is about the replacement of Judaism's worship and sacrifice system, I am supposed to believe that Hebrews is not for me AND (above) that every thing in the law will be practiced exactly.
    God will indeed return to Israel and will magnify the law and make it honorable. But this does not include issues concerning blood sacrifices which could no longer have any application. It applies, rather, to laws like "If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them." and "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

    D'ism is therefore fundamentally irrational and made up.
    It is you who are fundamentally irrational.

    Why is it that people think that they can object to a system's teachings based on ideas that it doesn't teach and think that they've done something meaningful?

    We are supposed to learn from it when things are shadows of Christ and when the reality of Christ has come. It has, Heb 9 and 10. They actually have no other topic.
    No dispensationalist has ever rightly stated anything to the contrary.

    Just what is it that you think you're accomplishing by pretending otherwise? I don't get it.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 28th, 2017),Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),steko (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (September 1st, 2017)

  12. #24
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    STP's statements, however accurately or twisted you might present them, do not define dispensationalism.
    Dispensationalism does not look forward to the day when the Levitical sacrificial system will be practiced at all. There is no longer any need for the blood of lambs and bulls because Christ shed His blood. When the substance has come, the symbolic is no longer needed. We learn this in a book that was addressed to Jews.


    No, only that it was addressed to Jews. We know this by the very complex and intellectually taxing act of reading the book's title.


    God will indeed return to Israel and will magnify the law and make it honorable. But this does not include issues concerning blood sacrifices which could no longer have any application. It applies, rather, to laws like "If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them." and "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."


    It is you who are fundamentally irrational.

    Why is it that people think that they can object to a system's teachings based on ideas that it doesn't teach and think that they've done something meaningful?


    No dispensationalist has ever rightly stated anything to the contrary.

    Just what is it that you think you're accomplishing by pretending otherwise? I don't get it.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete





    ON the last point:
    I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points.

    On the Levitical system:
    It seems you've just stepped into this discussion missing about 50 web pages worth of talk. Many of them fling chapters of Ezekiel at me to show that the sacrificial system will be up and running. The ones that use Jer 31 do not think it is fulfilled in Christ for a minute. Instead it is about another chance for the system and temple to be up and running.

    on the title of hebrews.
    It can be about that group in that generation and still have many, many shared points of doctrine to reinforce all believers. that is how is has been treated historically. and then there is the question of the options for the meaning of Hebrews. Is it:

    Christian Jews?
    the whole race?
    the new sense (Rom 2, Rom 9) in which there is both Jew and Gentile?

    hebrews is written in Greek that is more complicated than Luke-Acts. Why would that be? Isn't fair to say that there is at least some variation on the literal meaning given that fact?

    On God enforcing the law
    That is a worthwhile distinction; you are the first of those 5 to mention it. I think they are really sensetive about being criticised, so I'm glad you've spoken up. You seem to be referring to a Jewish millenium then. Would good is it to be for just Jews? Why not Gentiles? Do you mean a new sense of Jews--based on faith, Rom 2, 9?

    I believe such OT passages were referring to what Christ would accomplish in his own life and those things were done for Israel's sake. His life was lived for them, to justify them too. "OUt of Egypt I called my son" is a hint of this; a 2nd time for "Israel" (christ) to do what was needed for righteousness.


    about speaking directly:
    I grew up in it; I studied at Multnomah under them. I have been on these discussion for years. there are many important pages recently that you don't seem to know. Yes, I find it irrational on many points: eschatology, hermeneutics, specific passages like Acts 13, Gal 3. I still find 'speakers' or 'Bible teachers' or 'experts' who don't know Acts 13 is an official sermon transcript, and really, really don't know what Gal 3 is saying. Almost all of them think the Law is what Moses wrote instead of the praxis of Judaism that Paul grew up in which had certain things to accomplish after the exile. They irrationally ignore other history such as Judas the Galilean (mentioned in Acts 5) and most of the impact and background of the zealot revolt that lasted from Judas to Masada. In fact, it is even called a sin to know of it. Or it is called 'made up' by one of the makeup artists. So a huge volume like Cornfeld's archeological commentary on the Jewish War, published by Zondervan, 2 illustrations per page on average, is total trash to them. If that's not irrational, I don't know what word will work.


    On shadow to reality
    I don't know if any of the 5 here know what it means. they seem to respond to it like it was poison. Many of them have never read that all God's wrath on Israel fell in that generation after Jesus, that Paul said so two ways, that he said the law was 'the weak and miserable principles of the world' in Gal 4. That's the problem with prooftexts; the 'solve' everything and you stop hearing the Bible. I don't know if any of them know that shadow to reality is in both hebrews 8-10 and Col 2 (where there was neo-Judaism) and sort of connects the two docs as being by Paul.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  13. #25
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Clete,
    I'm not sure what the farce is.

    I have put in threads here with LISTS of problems with D'ism, and I have only made minor adjustments to them. For ex of the lists:
    10 Principles of NT Eschatology
    Notes on D'ism this Week
    8 things that sink D'ism

    I'm surprised you haven't responded yet, but since you only popped in to disagree, perhaps you are not really looking very closely.
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Interplanner For Your Post:

    Eagles Wings (August 29th, 2017)

  15. #26
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    870
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 212 Times in 171 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24786
    "I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points."

    In a way, dispensationalism has "collapsed" on TOL - into the dialectic game, which older dispensationalists like Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann or Rodney Howard-Browne do not get into very much. Many of the older dispensationalists did not preach on the doctrines of dispensationalism. But not preaching very much on dispensationalism but holding on to it is deceptive.

    The learning of dispensationalism by people depends a lot upon the Capital C Church over which the clergy class rules as "lords over God's heritage." - I Peter 5: 3. When the dispensationalists took over the Southern Baptist Convention they not only booted out of their seminaries all the professors who were not dispensationaliss, but they got rid of the old Southern Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer. In dispensationalism the preacher must be the "priest" who rules over the doctrines believed by the congregation.

  16. #27
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    near Olympic National Park
    Posts
    12,045
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 641 Times in 568 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    186459
    Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
    "I'm trying to make D'ism collapse. it is a ridiculous approach. It is unhistorical and irrational at many points."

    In a way, dispensationalism has "collapsed" on TOL - into the dialectic game, which older dispensationalists like Steve Quayle, Doug Hagmann or Rodney Howard-Browne do not get into very much. Many of the older dispensationalists did not preach on the doctrines of dispensationalism. But not preaching very much on dispensationalism but holding on to it is deceptive.



    Do you mean the doctrines themselves are deceptive, or that it is is deceptive not to preach ones own doctrines--and how exactly does a person do that?
    All Lives Matter --Marcus Sanford, youtube.com

  17. #28
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Ol Misery (Missouri)
    Posts
    870
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 212 Times in 171 Posts

    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    24786
    I used to listen to dispensationalist preachers on the radio, and if a listener at that time did not know much about dispensationalism and know which radio preachers were dispensationaliss, he or she would not have known the radio preacher is a dispensationalist and following a set of false doctrines. Most dispensationalists thirty or more years ago did not preach much on the doctrines of dispensationalism. In that way they lured people into the Gospel of Christ and into dispensationalism. Had the dispensationalist preachers defined dispensationalism clearly this would not have been so deceptive. And how does a person who does not know that dispensationalism is a false doctrine know he is being deceived?

    Many of the dispensationalist preachers on the radio thirty or more years ago preached the Gospel, but they held to the doctrines of dispensationalism, which to some extent gave their messages a subtle dispensationalist slant. In this way they taught dispensationmalism in a deceptive way. Many people hearing them did not know the preachers were teaching the Gospel with a dispensationalist slant. The preachers did not explain clearly the dispensationalist doctrines.They taught the Gospel in a dispensationalist way and the congregation for the most part thought dispensationalism is part of that Gospel.

    Here on TOL the dialectic that goes on is much more often focused upon the doctrines of dispensationalism. The preaching by dispensationalists in the churches at least then - and probably now also - was almost never focused upon dispensationalist doctrine itself, and so few church people ever learn that dispensationalist doctrine does not agree with a number of scriptures.

    My guess is that especially in the larger churches dispensationalist preachers do not preach the Gospel itself as well as dispensationalists did forty years ago. Preaching false doctrine can have a progressive negative effect over time on spiritual regeneration, so that a dispensationalist preacher in 2017 in a larger church setting would remain more in the spiritual state of the natural man (I Corinthians 2: 14) than a dispensationalist preacher forty or fifty years ago, even though forty or fifty years ago dispensationalms was just as false.

    Luke 13: 20-21 says "And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." Leavening of the congregations is progressive, the loss of the truth and loss of spiritual regeneration gets worse over time.

    "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Matthew 5: 13 Savour is from μωρανθῇ, moranthe, from moros, meaning stupid, "dull (insipid), flat ("without an edge"); (figuratively) "mentally inert"; dull in understanding; nonsensical ("moronic"), lacking a grip on reality (acting as though "brainless")."

    Putting Luke 13:20-21 together with Matthew 5: 13 could mean that as the following of false doctrines goes on over time those in the false doctrines become more and more spiritually stupid, reverting to the spiritual state of the natural man, spiritually "without an edge."
    Last edited by northwye; August 29th, 2017 at 08:33 AM.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to northwye For Your Post:

    Eagles Wings (August 29th, 2017)

  19. #29
    Silver Member JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    3,255
    Thanks
    5,176
    Thanked 1,645 Times in 1,169 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    339565
    Quote Originally Posted by northwye View Post
    I used to listen to dispensationalist preachers on the radio, and if a listener at that time did not know much about dispensationalism and know which radio preachers were dispensationaliss, he or she would not have known the radio preacher is a dispensationalist and following a set of false doctrines. Most dispensationalists thirty or more years ago did not preach much on the doctrines of dispensationalism. In that way they lured people into the Gospel of Christ and into dispensationalism. Had the dispensationalist preachers defined dispensationalism clearly this would not have been so deceptive. And how does a person who does not know that dispensationalism is a false doctrine know he is being deceived?
    You sound like you have an axe to grind against dispensationalism. Why?

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

  21. #30
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    12,430
    Thanks
    21,797
    Thanked 18,617 Times in 10,439 Posts

    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147692
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    You sound like you have an axe to grind against dispensationalism. Why?
    It's a dialectical two bladed axe.
    Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
    Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to steko For Your Post:

    Right Divider (August 29th, 2017),Tambora (August 29th, 2017)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us