Whatever you say dear, good day.
ECT Dispensationalism Defined
- Thread starter Cross Reference
- Start date
Whatever you say dear, good day.
That's correct.
Dispensationalism was invented by Darby, and is wrong.
Yet, millions of Christians have been taught Darby's theories, and don't even know who John Nelson Darby was.
The good news is that the pendulum is starting to swing the other way. Since the advent of the internet, people have been made aware of Darby, and the falsehoods of Dispensationalism.
The other thing that has helped expose Dispensationalism for the false doctrine that it is, has been the countless wrong "rapture" predictions by Dispensationalists the last 50+ years.
glorydaz
Well-known member
CR understands what "Christian man, in general" doesn't. So, actually, he's like Jerry already. :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I am just asking a question about what you said here:
Their Meat?
What is the "Meat" in the present dispensation of the grace of God?
Of course you think that you can say anything and then when asked a question about what you said you do not even attempt to answer it!
Instead, you accuse the one who asked the question of baiting you.
Again, all you want to do is run and hide but this time you are running from your own words and not the Scriptures. Do you never tire from embarrassing yourself?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
At least I do not run and hide from the Scriptures like you and Danoh do, which proves that neither of you have any self respect.
Spam. That "is wrong" assertion just stunned all of TOL, Craigie.
Aren't all false doctrines, "invented," as I've asked you for years, mutt? How does that do anything, to disprove the dispensational approach, to interpreting the book, and support your "AD 70-ism/Preterism" "invention?"
See how that works, mutt, as most of TOL laughs at you, Craigie?
Genesis 3:15 KJV
"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."-Gen. 3:15 KJV
How long was it, from the promise of the redeemer, in Genesis, until it's fulfillment, satanist Craigie?
Tet: The other thing that has helped expose Christianity has for the false doctrine that it is, has been the countless wrong "Messiah" predictions by (fill in the blank) for thousands of years.
You satanic punk, Craigie noTetosterone, engaging in "arguments" of sophistry.
Odd that I only do that with you and your Jerry-at-trick twin, Tel-a-stai in his eye, and or one or two others.
Grow up already; state your view; quit baiting others with your unlearned questions, only to prove you were already looking down your hypocritical nose at them.
You are like the interrupting child who; when it first learns the phrase "excuse me," simply begins misusing it as a means of continuing to interrupt others.
"Well, I said excuse me," it will now say, in defense of it's obvious deceit and continuing ill manners.
You one size fit all to that baiting/condescending formula of yours no matter how they respond to your tactic against them for their difference in understanding.
If polite with you; you attempt to twist that into the service of your agenda. If strong with you, you attempt to turn that into the service of same.
And you are like that with everyone who does not hold your exact understanding.
And ignorantly so; for some you knock within Mid-Acts actually do hold to some of those same understandings of yours that you stab them in the back about.
What you are is a bullying, condescending, hypocrite. Plain and simple.
Good guess, lol
More deflection and equivocation Danoh and trust me your headed in that direction.
Not at all.....ignore ON.
On the contrary, I think his messed up view leads to dispensationalism.
Secret unsaid narratives never do get expressed, because they don't exist.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I fear explanations of things explained:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/ebooks/understanding-dispensationalists/
AMR
To be fair, it would take all of three seconds to just agree with me.
Your book takes issue with the idea that there are parallel yet distinct outcomes in store for the body and Israel.
Do you not agree that one will inherit the Earth and the other will go to heaven?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Teasing out what you are really trying to say within all the Scripture blizzardry and in the roundabout manner you have said it is unprofitable.
Is the Israel of God a physical nation of Jacob's descendents or the spiritual Israel?
Church began at Pentecost? Yes or no?
Was the Church was not prophesied as such in the O.T. but rather was a hidden mystery until the N.T.? Yes or no?
Did an eternal Covenant of Redemption exist within the Trinity? Yes or no?
Is the 'New Covenant' of Jer. 31:31- 34 only for literal Israel and is it not the New Covenant of Lk. 22:20? Yes or no?
Were OT saints saved by works? Yes or no?
Did Jesus make an offer of the literal Kingdom to Israel and since Israel rejected it, is it postponed? Yes or no?
Is the law abolished? Yes or no?
Will O.T. animal sacrifices be restored in the Millenium? Yes or no?
Will the Millenium will fulfill the Covenant to Abraham and thusly, Israel has a future? Yes or no?
Will David sit on the millennial throne in the New Jerusalem? Yes or no?
Will Jesus sit on the millennial throne in the New Jerusalem? Yes or no?
Are there two gospels, one of Paul, one of Peter? Yes or no?
Does Zechariah 14:6 speak to a yet future Jewish millennium? Yes or no?
Is the church age is an unforeseen parenthesis or interjection in the Jewish program prophesied by the Old Testament prophets? Yes or no?
Are the Old Testament saints are in the church universal, which is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ? Yes or no?
Is God's program for the church is totally distinct from God's program for Israel? Yes or no?
In Matthew 21:43, what is this nation that was given the kingdom of God? Is it the nation of Israel or the church?
Is the Law a distinct covenant? Yes or no?
Will there be a millennial reign? Yes or no?
Is there an expectation that people will still be brought to salvation after Christ returns? Yes or no?
Revelation 20:4-6 speak to believers who have not died but are still alive when Christ returns? Yes or no?
Did the new covenant begin with the birth of Christ? Yes or no?
Was Christ sent to the Gentiles? Yes or no?
Will a rapture will occur first, then a tribulation period, followed by a thousand-year reign of Christ, after which there will be judgment and the eternal state? Yes or no?
Did Peter and Paul have the same commission, gospel and authentication? Yes or no?
Is the Great Commission of Matthew and Mark Jewish and therefore not for the Church? Yes or no?
Do the Gospels and Acts describe the dispensation of the Law? Yes or no?
Do only the Pauline prison epistles, that is Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, relate to the Church Age? Yes or no?
Is water baptism for the church age? Yes or no?
The above hints at what "dispensationalism" means when it is burdened with all manner of lexical freight beyond the plain meaning of but different administrations of one covenant of grace following Adam's failure of the covenant of works in the Garden.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No I do not.
I reject all manner of notions that hold the Bible teaches Christian Zionism.
AMR
When Jesus said the meek will inherit the Earth, what did He mean?
It's a shame, your posts don't!
When you speak of being "delusional" I believe it's somewhat "Autobiographical?" Know what I mean? Probably not?
I've often reflected on how ridiculous the idea is that a Darby, or whomever started out reading into Scripture the Dispensationalism that he came to be known for.
For, as with Reformed Theology, and or any other theology, many theological understandings did not start out as an understanding that earlier men read into Scripture, rather as an understanding they first mined out of Scripture, and that; over time, and given their approach, and only afterwards did they begin reading Scripture from same.
And that process is never ending.
You go out; run into a Mormon, for example, they throw something at you; you go home and study it out, and end up coming away from your study with understandings you perhaps had not had been privy to prior to that time in Scripture.
And all your studies are like that; accumulating over time a sense of an overall narrative.
And you find that you agree with some in similar areas, and not so much, if at all, in others, and so it goes.
And as you mature in that, you find a sense of an understanding of many of those questions you listed. This, out of the resulting, overall sense of narrative that all that time in the Word has resulted in.
That is, if you are fortunate in your ability to dissect a thing as to its inner workings; how this fits with that, or not, and so on.
I say, if you are fortunate, because that is not very often the case where most assert what they assert.
Much more often, the case is that what another is asserting is the result of another's labors.
You appear to me to be of this latter group, thus your black and white, yes or no questions.
You are Reformed. I am not. I am not even Mid-Acts, really, though I favor it over all other approaches.
That, as a result of where I study out all things in life in general that grab my attention to begin with - from a perspective of seeking out what General Rules of Thumb they appear to be pointing back to.
Books, Reformed, Dispensational, or what have you, often fail that. Instead, they instill in one what to think, followed by reasoning through a thing through the particular school's established thought.
None of that is for me. I simply do not care for it, despite the thousands of books I have read in my life.
Because what I have sought has been more, dissecting things as to their General Rules of Thumb. This, as far back as when I was a child wondering why leaves did not stay on trees.
Coming from that, we will not agree. Not because you are wrong and I am right, but because we have not been down the same road as to this.
Some will read this and conclude arrogance. I have no patience for such a narrow minded, one size fits all approach. Such individuals right off reveal by that why they not only remain stuck at what little they see, but why they believe they see more than they actually do, over another.
Bible study is the question "how does this work with that; what passages might answer that... and what passages might relate when I am off in that?"
Look, for example, at all that a passage like Romans 6:14 implies as to the need to look at things from having sought out first, General Rules of Thumb behind the mechanics of a thing.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
"Inherit the land (την γην)" as is the meaning is an ancient saying of receiving blessings.
The land promises are typical (that is a Type) of some larger Kingdom reality. The "land" is treated as a type of heaven in Hebrews when Paul talks about the fact that the Israelites never achieved the Promised rest that still remains. Paul, in Ephesians 5, uses the promise of living long in the land, as a promise to covenant children everywhere.
When Our Lord promises it, He means that the meek shall be received into His kingdom, and partake of its blessings here, and of the glories of the heavenly Canaan hereafter.
AMR