ECT What Is Dispensationalism; really?

[Danoh]

The Law

It is hard not to notice how the law is viewed with such words as holy. good, and perfect throughout the OT and into the NT writings.
And how there was great zeal to keep the law.

But when we get to Paul .......
The law is viewed as a curse, a ministration of death, and a yoke of bondage.
And how one should relieve themselves of that yoke.

And that, at the same time that Paul had a very high regard for the Law.

Good post, Tam.

 

[ClimateSanity]

The Davidic kingdom did come because Isaiah said the things promised to David were transfered to Christ, as quoted in Acts 13.
-----by interplanner.

For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.

Acts 13:27.

This verse doesn't appear to reference Isaiah. Perhaps you could provide the verse?

Maybe this is it?
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 9:6-7.

 

[Danoh]

Climate, there is no getting through to Inter, his Partial Preterism has "solved" to much within its own system.

As Einstein put it "you can not solve a problem by the same thinking that is causing it."

As that other observation goes "water seeks its' own level."

Pose a question to him, or make a comment, and his long since entrenched system's reasoning arises to all it is able to know - "its' own level."

In turn, he is running into a same kind of wall as to the other side of these debates.

But both cannot be sound. One side's reasoning must be off somewhere.

His being books based (he asserts he is "a historian" - meaning the reading of many books about "the" history), I'll wager his is off.

Imagine...

Here one has THE Book WITHOUT contradiction, but he prefers doing "the" history.

"The" being in quotes because "the" history men write "about," few of them agree on with one another.

That's my observation, Inter. Not a pleasant pill, I'm sure.

The best to you in your soon recovery from that...

 

[Interplanner]

The Davidic kingdom did come because Isaiah said the things promised to David were transfered to Christ, as quoted in Acts 13.
-----by interplanner.

For those who dwell in Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they did not know Him, nor even the voices of the Prophets which are read every Sabbath, have fulfilled them in condemning Him.

Acts 13:27.

This verse doesn't appear to reference Isaiah. Perhaps you could provide the verse?

Maybe this is it?
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 9:6-7.

"I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David"--Is.55:3, quoted in Acts 13:34.

Paul's explanation: This is the fact that God raised Christ from the dead, which is the way of showing that his righteousness had arrived and was perfect and accepted. The NT, typically, spends more time on what the Res proves than on what proves the Res. David is resurrected in Christ as are all believers. That is the arrival of his kingdom.

 

[Interplanner]

Climate, there is no getting through to Inter, his Partial Preterism has "solved" to much within its own system.

As Einstein put it "you can not solve a problem by the same thinking that is causing it."

As that other observation goes "water seeks its' own level."

Pose a question to him, or make a comment, and his long since entrenched system's reasoning arises to all it is able to know - "its' own level."

In turn, he is running into a same kind of wall as to the other side of these debates.

But both cannot be sound. One side's reasoning must be off somewhere.

His being books based (he asserts he is "a historian" - meaning the reading of many books about "the" history), I'll wager his is off.

Imagine...

Here one has THE Book WITHOUT contradiction, but he prefers doing "the" history.

"The" being in quotes because "the" history men write "about," few of them agree on with one another.

That's my observation, Inter. Not a pleasant pill, I'm sure.

The best to you in your soon recovery from that...

So two of you could not find Isaiah's reference to David's promises in Acts 13? why don't you try memorizing the sermon and reciting it expressively so that its meaning comes through in clear tone and inflection?

God did have a purpose for David in his own generation and no longer has that, v36. Hope that helps clarify.

Danoh's worthless comments on what someone's persona is belong in some thread somewhere else. This material is what the thread is about.

What I mean about being a historian is not reading other material (although I have) so much as reading this NT material with full appreciation of what it meant when it was first heard.

 

[Danoh]

So two of you could not find Isaiah's reference to David's promises in Acts 13? why don't you try memorizing the sermon and reciting it expressively so that its meaning comes through in clear tone and inflection?

God did have a purpose for David in his own generation and no longer has that, v36. Hope that helps clarify.

Danoh's worthless comments on what someone's persona is belong in some thread somewhere else. This material is what the thread is about.

What I mean about being a historian is not reading other material (although I have) so much as reading this NT material with full appreciation of what it meant when it was first heard.

Hah, I was commenting on your reasoning, not on your "persona."

It fails to see that unless one has been indoctrinated in your same reasoning, your advice to memorize this or that, or whatever, may not necessarily end up at your Partial-Preterist interpretations.

Quit being so lazy, lay out your understanding of Acts 13 verse by verse, as to the passages supposedly relevant to your view.

It is the only way myself or some other can then begin to do you the service of tearing your notions to shreds to your own edification.

Again, your persona is not an issue for me. Personally, I have nothing against anyone - "Christ died for all."

Now, their actions if not their reasoning, well, that's another matter.

Nevertheless, my door ever remains open to "them that are without" - just as I have been instructed to - to leave it open.

 

[Interplanner]

It is a history of Israel meant to encourage a distant group asking if there is any good news coming out of Israel these days (because of the hell-bent zealots). It reviews the history and points it all toward the arrival of Christ. The resurrection of Christ is God's acceptance of his suffering and death for all to see as an atonement. The Psalms and Isaiah say that the things promised to David are actually found true in Christ; he makes those things new. Through Christ a person can be justified from their sins, from everything which the Law cannot justify. That is what allows the Spirit of God to work the Messianic mission and allows a person to be a 'light to the nations' because they are in Christ the light. But Israel has to be warned sharply to believe this because they scoff at so much.

 

[Interplanner]

It is a history of Israel meant to encourage a distant group asking if there is any good news coming out of Israel these days (because of the hell-bent zealots). It reviews the history and points it all toward the arrival of Christ. The resurrection of Christ is God's acceptance of his suffering and death for all to see as an atonement. The Psalms and Isaiah say that the things promised to David are actually found true in Christ; he makes those things new. Through Christ a person can be justified from their sins, from everything which the Law cannot justify. That is what allows the Spirit of God to work the Messianic mission and allows a person to be a 'light to the nations' because they are in Christ the light. But Israel has to be warned sharply to believe this because they scoff at so much.

 

[Interplanner]

what's your summary? why do you never ask or comment on one specific in Acts 13?

 

[Danoh]

what's your summary? why do you never ask or comment on one specific in Acts 13?

Acts 13 is referring to what has become of Romans 15:8-12 in light of Romans 1-3 and Romans 9-11.

In summary, Acts 13 is Romans 15:23-21.

We both "do the history," IP.

I "do the history" through THE Book.

You, through "books about" - through the speculations of men raised on the speculations of men before them, who were weaned on previous "books about."

That I point this out peeves you to no end.

But it is what it is. You are "textbook."

I, THE Book.

In this, "books about" do have their use.

We GREATLY differ on what that use is.

"Books about" ARE able to assert that Vespasian built Rome's famed Colosseum.

They do have their use.

But they GREATLY tend to be off on what exactly may have taken place when, within said Colosseum.

But "books about" are where YOU HEAVILY "do the history."

A "history" that can only speculate conclusions you and yours then bring to your reading INTO of Scripture as solid conclusions.

I know the pattern. Acts TWO Dispy Scholars often made this same mistake - and still do to this very day.

Even SOME within Mid-Acts rely on this same faulty system of yours.

Not all do, though.

Some actually "do the history" WITHIN THE Book, itself.

Our approach - yours and mine - differs.

Can you really expect we can both be on same page, let one, hope to persuade the other?

Attempt to reason your system and its' results in post after post all you want, IP, but the fact is we will never see eye to eye.

Likewise, as to my end.

The best to you in this...

 

[Interplanner]

Acts 13 is referring to what has become of Romans 15:8-12 in light of Romans 1-3 and Romans 9-11.

In summary, Acts 13 is Romans 15:23-21.

We both "do the history," IP.

I "do the history" through THE Book.

You, through "books about" - through the speculations of men raised on the speculations of men before them, who were weaned on previous "books about."

That I point this out peeves you to no end.

But it is what it is. You are "textbook."

I, THE Book.

In this, "books about" do have their use.

We GREATLY differ on what that use is.

"Books about" ARE able to assert that Vespasian built Rome's famed Colosseum.

They do have their use.

But they GREATLY tend to be off on what exactly may have taken place when, within said Colosseum.

But "books about" are where YOU HEAVILY "do the history."

A "history" that can only speculate conclusions you and yours then bring to your reading INTO of Scripture as solid conclusions.

I know the pattern. Acts TWO Dispy Scholars often made this same mistake - and still do to this very day.

Even SOME within Mid-Acts rely on this same faulty system of yours.

Not all do, though.

Some actually "do the history" WITHIN THE Book, itself.

Our approach - yours and mine - differs.

Can you really expect we can both be on same page, let one, hope to persuade the other?

Attempt to reason your system and its' results in post after post all you want, IP, but the fact is we will never see eye to eye.

Likewise, as to my end.

The best to you in this...

...so you still can't after 2 years give a succinct propostional statement about Acts 13. Figures. And how many times have recommended books? 23 at the last count. Ahh, the BOOK man.

As for Rom 15. You must be kidding. You put the numbers backwards, but I see no difference. Acts 13 is the Gospel for all, but given in a synagogue. Can't you see that even though he calls himself the one ministering to the Gentiles, that the groups are full of Jews and Jewish problems--Gal, Col, Cor. What sort of an amateur are you?

 

[patrick jane]

...so you still can't after 2 years give a succinct propostional statement about Acts 13. Figures. And how many times have recommended books? 23 at the last count. Ahh, the BOOK man.

As for Rom 15. You must be kidding. You put the numbers backwards, but I see no difference. Acts 13 is the Gospel for all, but given in a synagogue. Can't you see that even though he calls himself the one ministering to the Gentiles, that the groups are full of Jews and Jewish problems--Gal, Col, Cor. What sort of an amateur are you?

He's the best amateur I've ever seen - :rotfl:

 

[Danoh]

...so you still can't after 2 years give a succinct propostional statement about Acts 13. Figures. And how many times have recommended books? 23 at the last count. Ahh, the BOOK man.

As for Rom 15. You must be kidding. You put the numbers backwards, but I see no difference. Acts 13 is the Gospel for all, but given in a synagogue. Can't you see that even though he calls himself the one ministering to the Gentiles, that the groups are full of Jews and Jewish problems--Gal, Col, Cor. What sort of an amateur are you?

O did you say you wanted a summary?

Very well...

Acts 13 is referring to what has become of Romans 15:8-12 in light of Romans 1-3 and Romans 9-11.

In summary, Acts 13 is Romans 15:23-21.

Lol

 

[Interplanner]

O did you say you wanted a summary?

Very well...

Acts 13 is referring to what has become of Romans 15:8-12 in light of Romans 1-3 and Romans 9-11.

In summary, Acts 13 is Romans 15:23-21.

Lol

"What became of..." makes it sound like it was unintended or accidental or left to chance. Not at all. Rom 15 confirms it went exactly as planned, as does 'deigma' in Rom 16, where Paul borrows an Imperial term for how God has reached the nations. The mission of the Gospel was the plan all along. There were no switches between 2 programs contingent on human (Israel) decisions because there never was 2 programs.

 

[Cross Reference]

As long as one is still more alive to what God does for him, to what the Cross realizes for him, to what his position in Christ means for him __ that individual has never grasped the teaching of Jesus Christ.

 

[Danoh]

"What became of..." makes it sound like it was unintended or accidental or left to chance. Not at all. Rom 15 confirms it went exactly as planned, as does 'deigma' in Rom 16, where Paul borrows an Imperial term for how God has reached the nations. The mission of the Gospel was the plan all along. There were no switches between 2 programs contingent on human (Israel) decisions because there never was 2 programs.

You're right; the way YOU read INTO another's words, makes what I posted sound like something was left to chance.

Frankly, you are an incompetent - Romans 15:8-12 is in light of Israel's fall in Romans 1-3 and 9-11.

Thus, Romans 15:8-12 - ISRAEL'S Prophesied rise FIRST never took place - "the salvation of God" which "according to the Scriptures" was supposed to have gone "unto the Gentiles" thru Israel's rise FIRST, instead went to the Gentiles not only DIRECTLY but "through their FALL..."

Instead of this...

Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

THAT is Romans 15:8-12 in light of Romans 11:26-29.

And Romans 11:26-29 is the following...delayed...

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

What one finds instead, is what only appears to as having permanently replaced that... One finds this...

Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

A child could see the former was not replaced by the latter, as the conditions of the former have yet been met.

This here has yet happened...

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

That is this...

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

You constantly prove the amatuer your education has left you, where all these issues are concerned.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
Instead of this...

Isaiah 60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.


Sorry, Danoh, but that did happen in the Gospel and its mission. You just don't know how the NT is using the Gospel to define things. Part of your problem is literalism, and part of it is just not going with the (imperfect) use of the OT by the NT.

If Romans was to be mishmashed as you want, it would have said so.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
as the conditions of the former have yet been met.


That's the literalism problem. There is no evidence the NT uses the OT the way you are saying it is 'supposed' to. Instead it says that everything the prophets said about the Christ has come to pass in the resurrection, Lk 24. Yep, I'm an amateur at D'ism and I plan to keep it that way, because it was invented for completely different reasons.

ONe of the great mysteries of the historical progression of theology is why so few people stuck with Pastor Holford on Mt 24 about the DofJ, which he used to refute the skepticism of T. Payne in 1805, and went with the Brethren on Mt 24 as futurism to reinforce their attempt to solve the friction between Catholics and Protestants. Or it is not so mysterious with people being injured, homes burned, killings.

 

[Danoh]

Your problem, Interplanner is that you have wasted decades in the writings of men supposedly about the Bible. You come away from all that concluding you know what's what.

Fact is you are Biblically illiterate - your every post littered with someone else's conclusions along with a dash of your own based on said conclusions.

You consistently misquote Scripture references while very adept at talking the endless histories you continue to waste your time in.

I know you alright - you are a carbon copy of countless others just like you.

But it is too late for you to see this obvious problem.

 

[Interplanner]

If you don't put in a specific textual question, just shut up. this forum is not about me, as you have made it, and all you do is generalize. Specific verse or word questions please, otherwise shut up.