ECT At least it was a (D'ists) logical question!

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The big knockout question was raised this week on Batchelor's answer man, where everything is as trite as can be.

Q: Well, since the times of the Gentiles was from 70 to 1967, and this Bama thing is going to ruin the progress, are we going back under the times of the Gentiles?

Doug: Yeah, it looks like it.



Hard to believe how materialistic people can be about the land, but there it is. No matter what kind of thing happened there in 1967, no matter what kind of people (at least to me, it doesn't sound like Acts 2 happened all over again--but I could be wrong), it's RIGHT OUT OF ROMANS 11, WOW!

BTW, to his credit Doug B has a spiritual Israel essay. He thinks Gentiles are in that. But that gets removed because God has two programs and is otherwise runing 2 sets of rules etc, like our D'ist friends (still looking for the other atonement that is supposed to happen or is hiding someplace in history). But instead of meaning something about spiritual maturity, it means nothing about that. He means that there is a bizarre unnatural type of Israel that has happened, in which words are no longer useful because they are no longer plain. It makes people hate the word spiritual because it sounds dishonest, oh well. Maybe some D'ists agree, some not.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Interplanner said:
The big knockout question was raised this week on Batchelor's answer man, where everything is as trite as can be.

Q: Well, since the times of the Gentiles was from 70 to 1967, and this Bama thing is going to ruin the progress, are we going back under the times of the Gentiles?

Doug: Yeah, it looks like it.



Hard to believe how materialistic people can be about the land, but there it is. No matter what kind of thing happened there in 1967, no matter what kind of people (at least to me, it doesn't sound like Acts 2 happened all over again--but I could be wrong), it's RIGHT OUT OF ROMANS 11, WOW!

BTW, to his credit Doug B has a spiritual Israel essay. He thinks Gentiles are in that. But that gets removed because God has two programs and is otherwise runing 2 sets of rules etc, like our D'ist friends (still looking for the other atonement that is supposed to happen or is hiding someplace in history). But instead of meaning something about spiritual maturity, it means nothing about that. He means that there is a bizarre unnatural type of Israel that has happened, in which words are no longer useful because they are no longer plain. It makes people hate the word spiritual because it sounds dishonest, oh well. Maybe some D'ists agree, some not.
Click to expand...

lol - Doug's answer must've had you in your own "not for us!!!"

I can just hear you sitting there - "No! No! No! 70AD! 70AD! It settled all that! Not for us! Not for us!!!"

:rotfl:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 
D

Danoh

New member
SaulToPaul said:
Looks like IP is still ignoring you, D.
Click to expand...

lol - perhaps, but you must know this aspect of me by now - uncertain friendships, the approval or disapproval of one, of a few, has never been my preference.

Learned that long ago, while preaching every now and then to a group of mostly homeless drunks at a Mission.

Most were that for a nap in a place other than their usual - the street - and a meal afterwards.

But you focus on the task at hand - the message - allowing the Word to do the rest where men's hearts allow it to.

Thus, if IP, or whomever, is actually ignoring me, that is fine. And if he is not, I'm fine with that as well.

Neither he, nor I, are the issue.

Christ alone...is.

Romans 5, bro - Romans 5 :)
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Danoh said:
lol - perhaps, but you must know this aspect of me by now - uncertain friendships, the approval or disapproval of one, of a few, has never been my preference.

Learned that long ago, while preaching every now and then to a group of mostly homeless drunks at a Mission.

Most were that for a nap in a place other than their usual - the street - and a meal afterwards.

But you focus on the task at hand - the message - allowing the Word to do the rest where men's hearts allow it to.

Thus, if IP, or whomever, is actually ignoring me, that is fine. And if he is not, I'm fine with that as well.

Neither he, nor I, are the issue.

Christ alone...is.

Romans 5, bro - Romans 5 :)
Click to expand...

One reason why I continue to reply to his posts.
 
N

northwye

New member
The founders of dispensationalism do say God has two programs running now.

John Darby said that the "Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the
earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them..."

John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation'
Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.

"Them" are all physical Israel, or Old Covenant Israel. The church, for Darby exists to "give fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel." Darby thought that the purpose of the Christian church, the ekklesia as a meeting, assembly or congregation of Israel reborn in Christ, made into The Body of Christ like the Catholic capital C Church, was to honor all physical Israel.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:
"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed
in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction
throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,1966, pp.44-45.

J. Dwight Pentecost in his book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.

Saying that dispensationalism does not teach that God has two programs running now is part of the dialectic game, and who knows what saying that is thought to accomplish.

Now the dispensationalist who said dispensationalism does not teach two programs running at once will claim no one ever said this on the thread.
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
northwye said:
John. N. Darby

Lewis S. Chafer

Charles C. Ryrie
Click to expand...
They were pioneers and had laid some groundwork, but they were not "the founders" of dispensationism.
Scripture is our foundation.


Now the dispensationalist who said dispensationalism does not teach two programs running at once will claim no one ever said this on the thread.
Click to expand...
Some do.
Some don't.
This is not earth-shattering, eye-opening news.

Both agree that the BOC and Israel are separate entities that GOD deals with independently.
But some believe no prophesy whatsoever towards Israel is happening in this dispensation, and some do.

I don't see it as being a deal-breaker whether one can be a dispy or not.
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
northwye said:
The founders of dispensationalism do say God has two programs running now.

John Darby said that the "Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the
earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them..."

John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation'
Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.

"Them" are all physical Israel, or Old Covenant Israel. The church, for Darby exists to "give fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel." Darby thought that the purpose of the Christian church, the ekklesia as a meeting, assembly or congregation of Israel reborn in Christ, made into The Body of Christ like the Catholic capital C Church, was to honor all physical Israel.

"Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne so that in eternity, '...never the twain, Israel and church, shall meet." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323..

Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says:
"basic promise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed
in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction
throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,1966, pp.44-45.

J. Dwight Pentecost in his book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church and Israel are two distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan.

Saying that dispensationalism does not teach that God has two programs running now is part of the dialectic game, and who knows what saying that is thought to accomplish.

Now the dispensationalist who said dispensationalism does not teach two programs running at once will claim no one ever said this on the thread.
Click to expand...


None of those quotes suggest two programs are now running side by side.
 
N

northwye

New member
There have been different forms of dispensationalism since the theology began in the earlier part of the 19th century. But there are common doctrines in these different forms. And these common doctrines disagree with some scriptures.

It is better to start from scripture and ask whether dispensationalism agrees with these scriptures. This is because those who have a love for the truth - II Thessalonians 2:10-12 - want to teach scripture first of all rather than the theologies of the churches.

Here are some New Testament scriptures to look at to see if dispensationalism agrees or disagrees with: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9
 
D

Danoh

New member
1Mind1Spirit said:
Why can't a temporary casting away not be considered a program?
Click to expand...

As in, if one is looking over to their right, they are also not looking over to their left?

lol

You can return to your "other program" now - your bong :chuckle:

Rom. 5:8
Acts 17:11,12
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
northwye said:
There have been different forms of dispensationalism since the theology began in the earlier part of the 19th century. But there are common doctrines in these different forms. And these common doctrines disagree with some scriptures.

It is better to start from scripture and ask whether dispensationalism agrees with these scriptures. This is because those who have a love for the truth - II Thessalonians 2:10-12 - want to teach scripture first of all rather than the theologies of the churches.

Here are some New Testament scriptures to look at to see if dispensationalism agrees or disagrees with: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9
Click to expand...

:chuckle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top