Dispensationalism (D'ism?) Any one willing to post a definition? Please do so.

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I said
If you don't mind could I ask you what a strawman argument is?
I found an internet page that gives some examples of a stawman argument.

Examples of Straw Man:
1. Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.
2. Caroline says that she thinks her friends should not be so rude to the new girl. Jenna says that she cannot believe that Caroline is choosing to be better friends with the new girl than the girls who have always known her.
3. Pamela is the class secretary. She says that she thinks that the class should do more service projects. Mark says he can't believe that Pamela doesn't support the annual school dance.
4. Biology teacher begins teaching evolution by stating that all things evolve. Student says she just can't accept that humans came from bugs.
5. Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Donald Trump's positions have merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student believes in support racism.
6. Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Hillary Clinton's positions have merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student supports giving access to classified documents to foreign countries.

 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
IP will make all things clear to us, tell us what to think and do. We need only be patient.

Dispensationalism is basically the method of interpreting the scriptures that sees two distinct peoples of God, with two distinct destinies – Israel and the Church. A dispensationalist is a person who will affirm one or more of the following tenets.


1. The Church is not the continuation of God's Old Testament people, but a distinct body born on the Day of Pentecost.
2. The Church is never equated with Israel in the New Testament, and Christians are not Jews, true Israel, etc.
3. The prophecies made to Israel in the Old Testament are not being fulfilled in the Church, nor will they ever be.
4. The Church does not participate in the New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament; it is for ethnic Israel, and will be established in a future millennial kingdom.
5. The Old Testament saints were saved by faith alone, on the basis of the Calvary-work of Christ alone; however, the object of their faith was not Christ, but rather the revelation peculiar to their dispensation.
6. The Old Testament saints did not know of the coming “Church Age,” of the resurrection of Christ, or basically, of what we today call the gospel.
7. When Jesus came to earth, he offered the Jews a physical kingdom, but they rejected him.
8. When Jesus proclaimed “the gospel of the Kingdom,” it was the news about how ethnic Jews might enter and find rewards in this physical kingdom, and is to be distinguished from the gospel as defined in I Corinthians 15:3-4, which the apostles later proclaimed to the church.
9. After the Jews rejected Jesus' kingdom offer, he inaugurated a parenthetical “Church Age”, which will be concluded immediately before God again takes up his dealings with his national people, ethnic Israel.
10. During the “Church Age,” Jesus is not reigning from the throne of David; he is engaged instead in his priestly work, and his kingly work will take place in the future millennial kingdom.
11. At some unspecified but imminent time, Jesus will return (but not all the way to earth, just to the air) and rapture his Church, also called his Bride; for the following seven years, they will feast with him at the marriage supper of the Lamb; meanwhile, on earth, he will begin to deal with his national people, ethnic Israel, again, calling them to himself and preserving them in the midst of seven years of great tribulation; at the midpoint of which, the Antichrist will set himself up as god in the rebuilt Jewish temple, and demand worship from the world.
12. After these seven years, Christ will return, this time all the way to earth. He will defeat the forces of evil, bind Satan and cast him into a pit, and inaugurate the physical Jewish Kingdom that he had offered during his life on earth. The Jews who survived the tribulation will populate the earth during this blessed golden era, and the Christians will reign spiritually, in glorified bodies.
13. After these thousand years, Satan will be released and will gather an army from the offspring of the Jews who survived the tribulation. He will be finally defeated and cast into hell. At this time, the wicked dead will be resurrected and judged, whereas the righteous dead had already been resurrected one-thousand-seven years previously, at the rapture. Christ will then usher in the New Heavens and New Earth, and the destinies of all mankind will be finalized. Dispensationalists are divided as to whether or not there will remain a distinction between Christians and Jews in the New Earth.

HT: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/dispensationalism.html

Are we accurate or close from the above? Suggested tweaks? ;)

AMR
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sure.
It's called a stawman to give the imagery of making an image (scarecrow/strawman/dummy) to attack rather than the real thing.
Or to attack a concept that is out of context of what was presented.

In other word, you misrepresent and distort what they say, and then attack the distortion you made up as if you are actually countering what they actually said.
But you are not countering what they actually said; but are countering your own distortion of what they said.
You are attacking an image (strawman) you built yourself.

Or just find about any thread/post herein purporting to claim what Calvinists believe and you have a perfect example of a straw man argument. :AMR:

An even better example:
http://theologyonline.com/search.php?searchid=637646

;)

AMR
 

Squeaky

BANNED
Banned
Sure.
It's called a stawman to give the imagery of making an image (scarecrow/strawman/dummy) to attack rather than the real thing.
Or to attack a concept that is out of context of what was presented.

In other word, you misrepresent and distort what they say, and then attack the distortion you made up as if you are actually countering what they actually said.
But you are not countering what they actually said; but are countering your own distortion of what they said.
You are attacking an image (strawman) you built yourself.

I said
Thank you. I have seen a lot of people that start out assuming something and even before they have ended they turn their own assumption into fact.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
One other feature of D'ism is to use the expression 'rightly dividing' as though it had to do with dividing up Scripture commands, or 2P2P, when in fact it is about church admin and about not wasting time on wranglers about genealogies which are no use.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Dispensationalism is basically the method of interpreting the scriptures that sees two distinct peoples of God, with two distinct destinies – Israel and the Church. A dispensationalist is a person who will affirm one or more of the following tenets.


1. The Church is not the continuation of God's Old Testament people, but a distinct body born on the Day of Pentecost.
2. The Church is never equated with Israel in the New Testament, and Christians are not Jews, true Israel, etc.
3. The prophecies made to Israel in the Old Testament are not being fulfilled in the Church, nor will they ever be.
4. The Church does not participate in the New Covenant prophesied in the Old Testament; it is for ethnic Israel, and will be established in a future millennial kingdom.
5. The Old Testament saints were saved by faith alone, on the basis of the Calvary-work of Christ alone; however, the object of their faith was not Christ, but rather the revelation peculiar to their dispensation.
6. The Old Testament saints did not know of the coming “Church Age,” of the resurrection of Christ, or basically, of what we today call the gospel.
7. When Jesus came to earth, he offered the Jews a physical kingdom, but they rejected him.
8. When Jesus proclaimed “the gospel of the Kingdom,” it was the news about how ethnic Jews might enter and find rewards in this physical kingdom, and is to be distinguished from the gospel as defined in I Corinthians 15:3-4, which the apostles later proclaimed to the church.
9. After the Jews rejected Jesus' kingdom offer, he inaugurated a parenthetical “Church Age”, which will be concluded immediately before God again takes up his dealings with his national people, ethnic Israel.
10. During the “Church Age,” Jesus is not reigning from the throne of David; he is engaged instead in his priestly work, and his kingly work will take place in the future millennial kingdom.
11. At some unspecified but imminent time, Jesus will return (but not all the way to earth, just to the air) and rapture his Church, also called his Bride; for the following seven years, they will feast with him at the marriage supper of the Lamb; meanwhile, on earth, he will begin to deal with his national people, ethnic Israel, again, calling them to himself and preserving them in the midst of seven years of great tribulation; at the midpoint of which, the Antichrist will set himself up as god in the rebuilt Jewish temple, and demand worship from the world.
12. After these seven years, Christ will return, this time all the way to earth. He will defeat the forces of evil, bind Satan and cast him into a pit, and inaugurate the physical Jewish Kingdom that he had offered during his life on earth. The Jews who survived the tribulation will populate the earth during this blessed golden era, and the Christians will reign spiritually, in glorified bodies.
13. After these thousand years, Satan will be released and will gather an army from the offspring of the Jews who survived the tribulation. He will be finally defeated and cast into hell. At this time, the wicked dead will be resurrected and judged, whereas the righteous dead had already been resurrected one-thousand-seven years previously, at the rapture. Christ will then usher in the New Heavens and New Earth, and the destinies of all mankind will be finalized. Dispensationalists are divided as to whether or not there will remain a distinction between Christians and Jews in the New Earth.

HT: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/dispensationalism.html

Are we accurate or close from the above? Suggested tweaks? ;)

AMR




Yep, it's 2P2P; that's what really defines it. Chafer thought the Bible to be confused until using that.
 

Epoisses

New member
As many threads there are on this subject, I thought I might ask for definitions of Dispensationalism.

So, will anyone post their definition of D'ism?

or a definition of D'ism whether they are for or against it?

If we could keep it short, as in say 50 words or less.

My own understanding of this subject I will attend to later, though I have expressed them in the past.

You have to accept a secret rapture which is make believe and reject the writings of Paul who spoke of an Israel of God and a circumcision of Christ.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
.A dispensationalist is a person who will affirm one or more of the following tenets.
A test by AMR.
Oh boy!

I actually started to take the test by highlighting in red what I disagreed with.
But after just a couple questions, I realized that a lot of them are too ambiguous to just give a yes or no.

But the first question alone rules out most of the Dispys at TOL, as we do not believe the BOC started at Pentecost.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A test by AMR.
Oh boy!

I actually started to take the test by highlighting in red what I disagreed with.
But after just a couple questions, I realized that a lot of them are too ambiguous to just give a yes or no.

But the first question alone rules out most of the Dispys at TOL, as we do not believe the BOC started at Pentecost.
I guess it is a starting point. It would be very helpful to take these thirteen statements and re-formulate them into something that would yield general agreement. This way, when someone is discussing dispensationalism, folks would be on the same page or at least close.

I do have a draft of something similar for Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that can also be worked upon:
Spoiler

1. Dispensational Theology distinguishes between Israel and the Church
2. Unaware that Jesus will be crucified, the 12 preach the gospel of the kingdom
3. Isaiah chapter 53
4. Rightly dividing the word: A scriptural necessity
5. The new covenant did NOT begin with the birth of Christ
6. Circumcision: The TOKEN of the Abrahamic Covenant
7. The children of Israel were to SEPARATE themselves from the Gentiles
8. God promised to BLESS those who blessed Abraham's "seed", the nation of Israel
9. Gentiles were excluded from Christ's earthly ministry
10. In Acts 10, Cornelius does not portray today's salvation of Uncircumcised Gentiles
11. Even in Acts 3, Israel was STILL the "seed" through whom the nations were blessed
12. The "Great Commission", being prophetic, was interrupted
13. The "dispensation of grace": Prophecy interrupted; an unprophesied mystery begins
14. Grecians, in Acts chapters 6 and 11, were Greek-speaking JEWS, not Gentiles
15. The book of James was not written to Gentiles
16. The Apostle Paul - 14 passages which state that he is the Lord's Spokesman to the Gentiles


And I have my very own draft of an anti-Calvinist statement of faith, ;) since the usual anti-Calvinist lacks the same:
Spoiler

The Thirty-Four Articles of the Anti-Calvinist Confession of Faith

1. It is the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God's Word.

2. God's election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, non-peremptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute). Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation, so that there can be an election to justifying faith apart from a peremptory election to salvation.

3. God's good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God's choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God's choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

4. In election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

5. The incomplete and non-peremptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

6. Not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

7. In this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one's unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent.

8. It was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

9. The cause for God's sending the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely God's good pleasure, but rather that one people is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not communicated.

10. God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

11. The purpose of Christ's death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

12. Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

13. What is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

14. All people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

15. We make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

16. Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

17. Properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.

18. The spiritual gifts or the good dispositions and virtues such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness could not have resided in man's will when he was first created, and therefore could not have been separated from the will at the fall.

19. In spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man's will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it--or else not to will or choose it.

20. Unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.

21. Corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace(by which they mean the light of nature)or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace-- evangelical or saving grace--as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.

22. In the true conversion of man new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into his will by God, and indeed that the faith [or believing] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name "believers" is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith.

23. The grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or (as others explain it) that the way of God's acting in man's conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God's work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.

24. God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man's will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man's conversion, man nevertheless can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him, that man completely thwarts his own rebirth; and, indeed, that it remains in his own power whether or not to be reborn.

25. Grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede--in the order of causality--the effective influence of the will; that is to say,that God does not effectively help man's will to come to conversion before man's will itself motivates and determines itself.

26. The perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ's death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his "peremptory" election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

27. God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man's will whether or not he perseveres.

28. Those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and are lost forever.

29. Those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

30. Apart from a special revelation no one can have the assurance of future perseverance in this life.

31. The teaching of the assurance of perseverance and of salvation is by its very nature and character an opiate of the flesh and is harmful to godliness, good morals, prayer, and other holy exercises, but that, on the contrary, to have doubt about this is praiseworthy.

32. The faith of those who believe only temporarily does not differ from justifying and saving faith except in duration alone.

33. It is not absurd that a person, after losing his former regeneration, should once again, indeed quite often, be reborn.

34. Christ nowhere prayed for an unfailing perseverance of believers in faith.


All of which is an important point related to straw man arguments. Persons constructing straw men of another's views by claiming he or she operates from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about his or her beliefs what they believe about his or her beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

It is easy to construct these fallacies of extension (aka, straw man) arguments when what is being argued exists in relatively nascent form. Having things clearly articulated wherein it can be examined and critiqued reduces the unintentional or purposeful straw man argument, or at the very least such formal statements can be used to quickly expose straw man arguments.

Unfortunately, even when a belief system exists in writing in painful detail, having withstood the tests of time, there will always be those that still resort to straw man tactics, thereby revealing their desperation. ;)

AMR
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, even when a belief system exists in writing in painful detail, having withstood the tests of time, there will always be those that still resort to straw man tactics, thereby revealing their desperation. ;)

AMR
hehe!

And it will all have to be re-written to update for future generations to understand.

I have grand-children.
That's just 2 generations from me, and I can't understand half of what they and their friends are saying.
They have a boatload of new idioms they use to communicate that I have never heard before.
Pretty soon, how you and I write and communicate will be considered 'old English'.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
2P2P?
Two Peoples, Two Programs ?
Two Peoples. Two Parentheses ?

AMR
He only sees 1 people (mankind), and GOD treated all of mankind the same (1 program).

IP cannot comprehend a difference between Israel and Gentiles and that GOD dealt differently with them.
It's beyond his reasoning capability.
He's rolling up on having created 100 threads on that very topic.
At least 17 threads just last month.
And he's already started racking up more to add for this month.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
A system of organizing the Bible that believes there are two distinct--even skew--programs. One is that God was going to come in Christ, and did, to deal with the debt of sin. The 2nd one is that Israel would have a kingdom or state on earth in perpetuity. Since that was seriously disrupted in 70 AD, a D'ist believes fervently in its restoration.

Made up
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
One other feature of D'ism is to use the expression 'rightly dividing' as though it had to do with dividing up Scripture commands, or 2P2P, when in fact it is about church admin and about not wasting time on wranglers about genealogies which are no use.

Made up
 

northwye

New member
Probably dispensationalists on TOL would not agree with those who oppose the theology on which scripture is relevant to the doctrines of dispensationalism. Then, there is the issue to argue about - whether what scripture says is Truth by which any church theology must be judged. But beyond that is the quarrel about what system of Bible interpretation is to be used in evaluating dispensationalism. If you use what seems to be dispensationalism's own system of Bible interpretation, those opposing the theology will reject this system of interpretation.

All of these specific issues to be argued about would often by avoided by dispensationalists, because this is not the way dispensationalists promote their theology. They will often say or imply that dispensationalism is taught by Paul and other New Testament writers.

Then, there is Romans 11: 25-26. which dispensationalists think clearly says God will return to Old Covenant Israel to restore it.

But then is not who or what is Israel in Romans 11: 26 - "And so all Israel shall be saved" determined by how this theology defines Israel? If the theology itself says Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel, then it is all Old Covenant Israel, by the flesh, who shall be saved. If Israel is not the children of the flesh in Romans 9: 8, then the "all Israel" in Romans 11: 26 could be all the elect of God, regardless of their DNA, which Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 and other texts support, such as much of Galatians 3.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
Probably dispensationalists on TOL would not agree with those who oppose the theology on which scripture is relevant to the doctrines of dispensationalism. Then, there is the issue to argue about - whether what scripture says is Truth by which any church theology must be judged. But beyond that is the quarrel about what system of Bible interpretation is to be used in evaluating dispensationalism. If you use what seems to be dispensationalism's own system of Bible interpretation, those opposing the theology will reject this system of interpretation.

All of these specific issues to be argued about would often by avoided by dispensationalists, because this is not the way dispensationalists promote their theology. They will often say or imply that dispensationalism is taught by Paul and other New Testament writers.

Then, there is Romans 11: 25-26. which dispensationalists think clearly says God will return to Old Covenant Israel to restore it.

But then is not who or what is Israel in Romans 11: 26 - "And so all Israel shall be saved" determined by how this theology defines Israel? If the theology itself says Israel must always be Old Covenant Israel, then it is all Old Covenant Israel, by the flesh, who shall be saved. If Israel is not the children of the flesh in Romans 9: 8, then the "all Israel" in Romans 11: 26 could be all the elect of God, regardless of their DNA, which Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 and other texts support, such as much of Galatians 3.





"D'ists have no problem with Galatians 3" -- read on TOL this week
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
2P2P?
Two Peoples, Two Programs ?
Two Peoples. Two Parentheses ?

AMR




Two Peoples, Two Programs is a chapter in Ryrie's D'ISM TODAY from the 70s. He said that is the essential part of D'ism. They like to trot out that it is how to handle different commands by God at different times, but that is not as close to the problem as 2P2P.

I referred to 2P2P here at TOL for about 1.5 years because it is more effective communication to refer to the actual doctrinal mistake than to a name-cypher that many people think means many other things.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
He only sees 1 people (mankind), and GOD treated all of mankind the same (1 program).

IP cannot comprehend a difference between Israel and Gentiles and that GOD dealt differently with them.
It's beyond his reasoning capability.
He's rolling up on having created 100 threads on that very topic.
At least 17 threads just last month.
And he's already started racking up more to add for this month.





The point being that the NT says that 'In your Seed, all the nations will be blessed' was said to mean the same thing in Abraham's day as in Paul's. The Seed was Christ. Those who believe on what he did for them, share in the promises to Abraham. The NT said this so we would know that the Seed in Gen 12-15 was also the Seed of Gen 3, to tie the whole into a unity, not two programs that cannot meet, as D'ist founders in the 1900s said.

To add on to this, the NT keeps treating Israel the nation as something to be distinguished--that it had both people who believed and those who did not. Always has. It was never to be accepted wholesale. Post-exile Judaism refused to believe that, as the opening of Jn 1 shows. 'Not born of natural descent, nor of human decision, nor a husband's will, but born of God.'
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I can't believer there are people on here who tell you what so and so's reasoning ability is. Once you have used counterfeit money, you know all about it, even though you haven't used it since the incident took place. It makes you wonder what their reasoning ability is.
 
Top