ECT What Is Dispensationalism; really?

[Interplanner]

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.

I also know only about 5 people who anywhere close to what I present with the 10 propositions. Most people think eschatology is the opposite of each of those and oogle over modern Israel and geo-political battles against modern Israel.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I also know only about 5 people who anywhere close to what I present with the 10 propositions. Most people think eschatology is the opposite of each of those and oogle over modern Israel and geo-political battles against modern Israel.

Since you have missed the fundamental principle of Bible eschatology, that almost all prophecy is about God's plans for the children of Israel, it is no wonder you are wrong on your 10 propositions.

 

[Danoh]

I also know only about 5 people who anywhere close to what I present with the 10 propositions. Most people think eschatology is the opposite of each of those and oogle over modern Israel and geo-political battles against modern Israel.

MADs are not "most people" - VERY few of which neither "oogle" nor ogle, "over modern Israel and geo-political battles against modern Israel."

I know, I know; your "one size fits all" lens is simply unable to grasp this.

 

[Interplanner]

Sorry but they are all over TV and fundamentalist D'ist churches. I don't know what you mean. They are all over Christian radio. Very rarely do I hear someone with even a hint of the explosive meaning of Galatians about this, about 2P2P. Everything does 2P2P-think without the slightest question. Israel is a completely separate reality, but it is "God" at work.

They constantly search the news for 'fulfillments' happening over in Israel. Whole programs are named for it; it is not even a side-bar.

I did hear one exception lately that had some sanity: 'there's going to be this big battle' he said, 'or rather, the nations will all be gathered for it against Israel, but it won't be much of a battle because it will be God's victory just like that and over with.' They HAVE to watch for this because it determines everything about the timing of 'end times events' which are those things that have to go 'back to Israel' and happen there. That is the 2P2P that you belong to and that is why it exists. I don't know what you are talking about and I don't think you are very familiar with what is out there.

 

[Danoh]

IP, you are confusing those who hold to A9D (Acts 9 Dispensationalism) with those one often hears on radio or sees on TV, most of which hold to an A2D (Acts 2 Dispensationalism, as illogical as that actually is).

Over the years, I have only come accross two teachers who profess to hold to A9D, who nevertheless persist in the error that is looking to the latest headlines as to the UN and or Israel for their "Bible truth."

Doing so is NOT the standard within A9D.

I don't look to that, and I'd be surprised if any of the A9Ds on TOL - STP, heir, RD, Nick, and so on, do.

It is neither our collective, nor our individual understanding as to that.

Israel in rebellion has ever been Zionist on its own - without God - going all the way back to the first time He kicked them out of their land that it regretabbly observe HIS Sabbaths without them.

So what about this - who on here who holds to A9D disagrees with this post? Who on here who holds to A9D is guilty of Interplanner's erroneous understanding that ALL Dispy's look to Jack Impe quacks for their understanding of his so called "fulfilling of end time prophecy straight out of the pages of today's headlines"?

Who on here who holds to A9D, agrees with Rexella Van Impe's "thank you Jack!" :chuckle:

 

[Tambora]

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.

Good post, Danoh.

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh wrote:
Thus, Romans 15:8-12 - ISRAEL'S Prophesied rise FIRST never took place - "the salvation of

Wrong. You don't know which Israel because you have 2 peoples.


Rom 1-3 is not Israel's fall, but all mankinds. You see 'Israel' because you have to programs and two peoples.

Instead of congratulating yourself on how far down you think you can describe me, you need to actually engage the questions put to you.

What is Acts 13's sermon's punchline? Do not make reference to any other passages, because I don't think you know what them mean either. I mean just restate it. We don't know a subject until we can restate it several ways.

 

[Interplanner]

Good post, Danoh.

Danoh does not realize that 11:26 is used historically. All those things happened in Christ and 11:30 speaks of the resolution of all these distinctions as past tense. There is no emphasis at all on the future (Paul's future) it is all complete and resolved. 'And so...' about Israel is the commonly known 'in this (partially blinded) manner,' referring to the ethne--the people-group. Because it will always be partly blinded like all mankind. Some will have faith; like all mankind. Those who have faith are in the tree and are saved.

The mercies of God mentioned as having taken place in Christ become the compulsion for love and fellowship between Christans, for them to be living sacrifices, ch 12. Not the future, but the past.

 

[Danoh]

Danoh wrote:
Thus, Romans 15:8-12 - ISRAEL'S Prophesied rise FIRST never took place - "the salvation of

Wrong. You don't know which Israel because you have 2 peoples.


Rom 1-3 is not Israel's fall, but all mankinds. You see 'Israel' because you have to programs and two peoples.

Instead of congratulating yourself on how far down you think you can describe me, you need to actually engage the questions put to you.

What is Acts 13's sermon's punchline? Do not make reference to any other passages, because I don't think you know what them mean either. I mean just restate it. We don't know a subject until we can restate it several ways.

Romans 1-3 IS ALL of mankind's fall - I have ALWAYS asserted that.

BUT I was talking about UNBELIEVING ISRAEL's part of that.

Oy...and vey!

:doh:

 

[Danoh]

Danoh does not realize that 11:26 is used historically. All those things happened in Christ and 11:30 speaks of the resolution of all these distinctions as past tense. There is no emphasis at all on the future (Paul's future) it is all complete and resolved. 'And so...' about Israel is the commonly known 'in this (partially blinded) manner,' referring to the ethne--the people-group. Because it will always be partly blinded like all mankind. Some will have faith; like all mankind. Those who have faith are in the tree and are saved.

The mercies of God mentioned as having taken place in Christ become the compulsion for love and fellowship between Christans, for them to be living sacrifices, ch 12. Not the future, but the past.

Absolute nonsense - Paul's whole point begins with an example of how that even when of their greatest Prophets had come so near to throwing in the towel on Israel, God HIMSELF had reminded Him HIS purpose in that nation was nowhere even remotely over with.

Paul relates that AS AN ISRAELITE ABOUT ISRAELITES - he is NOT talking Body Truth there - :doh:

Do THEIR history IN THEIR Scriptures - NOT in the endless nonsense of men about 1st Century Zealots.

 

[Interplanner]

Absolute nonsense - Paul's whole point begins with an example of how that even when of their greatest Prophets had come so near to throwing in the towel on Israel, God HIMSELF had reminded Him HIS purpose in that nation was nowhere even remotely over with.

Paul relates that AS AN ISRAELITE ABOUT ISRAELITES - he is NOT talking Body Truth there - :doh:

Do THEIR history IN THEIR Scriptures - NOT in the endless nonsense of men about 1st Century Zealots.

Another note about 'the purpose over with' or not. You are aware that the import of the paragraph is that there have always been remnants, aren't you? It is not a set up for a future. It is a setup for saying the remnant has always been there, past, present and future. Some Jews will have faith, but the 'Israel' that matters is from all nations, 9:26.



You may have a minor thing to disagree on, but you may not say absolute nonsense, because 11:30 is past tense, isn't it?

And ch 11 says he is talking to the Gentiles! That is, the question of why there is no much faith among Israelites is no different than why it is not among them as the nations. He means to prod, to arouse his own people to be missionaries (Is 52).

By showing that Paul is using the other Isaiah quotes historically, I am very much using their scriptures about their history. You're in a tizzy and can't think clearly.

There is no nonsense at all about the zealot interactions. It is at all the significant points along the way in the accounts, the last being the misidentification of Paul as an Egyptian Jew leading 4000 out in the desert. Mistaken ID, yes, but the profile of the issue is what matters. Acts was material evidence to show that he was not one of them.

You're just ticked because the NT is not that much theology-system driven and not yours in particular.

 

[Interplanner]

D'ism is a system that thinks that it is necessary to resolve certain promises to Israel that don't seem to be fulfilled yet. They should have listend to Jn 12:34 but they didn't. In the 1800's it became valuable to resolve the friction between protestant and catholic over AC. But it was not very good scholarship and became associated with the fringe fundamentalist and sounded less and less like the Bible as time went by.

 

[patrick jane]

Another note about 'the purpose over with' or not. You are aware that the import of the paragraph is that there have always been remnants, aren't you? It is not a set up for a future. It is a setup for saying the remnant has always been there, past, present and future. Some Jews will have faith, but the 'Israel' that matters is from all nations, 9:26.



You may have a minor thing to disagree on, but you may not say absolute nonsense, because 11:30 is past tense, isn't it?

And ch 11 says he is talking to the Gentiles! That is, the question of why there is no much faith among Israelites is no different than why it is not among them as the nations. He means to prod, to arouse his own people to be missionaries (Is 52).

By showing that Paul is using the other Isaiah quotes historically, I am very much using their scriptures about their history. You're in a tizzy and can't think clearly.

There is no nonsense at all about the zealot interactions. It is at all the significant points along the way in the accounts, the last being the misidentification of Paul as an Egyptian Jew leading 4000 out in the desert. Mistaken ID, yes, but the profile of the issue is what matters. Acts was material evidence to show that he was not one of them.

You're just ticked because the NT is not that much theology-system driven and not yours in particular.

:rotfl:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

D'ism is a system that thinks that it is necessary to resolve certain promises to Israel that don't seem to be fulfilled yet.

If words have any meaning at all, they are not fulfilled yet...more than "seem" to not be.

 

[Danoh]

If words have any meaning at all, they are not fulfilled yet...more than "seem" to not be.

You'd think one who goes by the name "Interplanner" would see, if not also understand, at some point; a planned parenthesis :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

You'd think one who goes by the name "Interplanner" would see, if not also understand, at some point; a planned parenthesis :chuckle:

Why would anyone want to believe in a "planned parenthesis" when the exile of the children of Israel from the land was prophesied before it happened, as was the return?

 

[Danoh]

Why would anyone want to believe in a "planned parenthesis" when the exile of the children of Israel from the land was prophesied before it happened, as was the return?

I was referring to the interim between the one and the other, as MAD does not hold to 1948.

The interim being God's having "interplanned..."

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Prior now, to verse 23, and following...

Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

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. 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

All Israel being Believing Israelites in that day, the other side of Romans 11:25 and with that; God's return to this...

Acts 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. 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

 

[HisServant]

No matter how you spin it, Dispensationalism is still defined by Darby.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism

1. John Nelson Darby The beginning of systematized dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe in a future salvation and restoration of national Israel. Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy earthly blessings that were different from the heavenly blessings experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe in an "any moment" rapture of the church that was followed by Daniel's Seventieth Week in which Israel would once again take center stage in God's plan. After this period, Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with Israel.1 According to Paul Enns, "Darby advanced the scheme of dispensationalism by noting that each dispensation places man under some condition; man has some responsibility before God. Darby also noted that each dispensation culminates in failure." 2 Darby saw seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles; (6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own testimony, Darby says his dispensational theology was fully formed by 1833.

It was a extra-biblical system designed so he could shoe horn his assumptions into scripture.

 

[Danoh]

No matter how you spin it, Dispensationalism is still defined by Darby.

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism



It was a extra-biblical system designed so he could shoe horn his assumptions into scripture.

No matter how you spin who spun what - if it had been GT, Meshak, Kingdom Rose and Cross Reference, edited by Interplanner and Prefaced by Telestai BUT it was sound Scripturally, no problem; sign me up.

But hey, if you are into the organized despair that is getting one's doctrine from history books about this, that, the other, together with other favorite writing pastimes of the wisdom of men in their ignorance; well then, by all means have at it; knock yourself out; that is what that spiritual Kool Ade is specifically meant to accomplish more of the same of :chuckle:

 

[HisServant]

I did not find your original post grounded in scripture, it was grounded in your preconceived ideas about scripture. But I think it is important for people to understand just how dispensationalism has morphed and changed over the last 200 years as holes in its framework have been exposed over and over again. It is to the point now, where few, except the die hards, actually believe in dispensationalism and have devolved into believing some sort of scriptural relativism... while desperately trying to justify its core tenets which cannot be explained by their framework anymore.