ECT The Freemason and Dispensationalist Connection

Danoh

New member
His approach is off by as much as 45% whereas we hybrids are off as much as 35%.
So, we have no room to judge.

Personally, bro, I'd say that overall you're off by about less than 1% in terms our different understandings of Mid-Acts - but that is more than enough fodder for me to give you a hard time on for quite some time :chuckle:

_________

* As I am sure you are aware; Mid-Acts is far more than the few subjects repeatedly discussed on TOL.

Ever read Baker's huge "A Dispensational Theology"?

Or Blade's almost perfect "Satan and His Policy of Evil"?

(just don't over rely on either :chuckle:)
 

musterion

Well-known member
Personally, bro, I'd say that overall you're off by about less than 1% in terms our different understandings of Mid-Acts - but that is more than enough fodder for me to give you a hard time on for quite some time :chuckle:

_________

* As I am sure you are aware; Mid-Acts is far more than the few subjects repeatedly discussed on TOL.

A couple years now of incessant sniping and strife just because of 1%?
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
And when they gang up on us, but are dead wrong, you often defend them and even ally with them, confirming them in error out of what can only be spite for us.
He can sure suck the joy out of bible study.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
a. Christ according to/after the flesh.

b. Christ according to the revealing of the secret.

Different things are different for a reason - because they are not the same.

You mean like,


1. Christ on earth- chose 12 apostles, sent them to Israel
2. Christ from heaven- chose 1 apostle, sent him to Gentiles


The LORD went to great lengths to make things clearly different.
 

northwye

New member
Read Stephen Sizer's books on Christian Zionism, such as Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon.

If someone came to this thread who had not read comments by the followers of Christian Zionism here recently - and there are more readers who are not TOL members than members - he or she might have no idea what is being argued here, or if some people here are just quarreling for the sake of a quarrel.

One of the reasons why what is being argued is not real clear here is because the argument over dispensationalist doctrines and New Testament scripture has been going on so long here that it gets tiresome saying the same thing over and over, so for entertainment and saying something new, what is often said is not helpful for understanding the issue between dispensationalism and scripture. Claiming that dispensationalism is not what that theology is said to be in the literature is part of this tired quarrel.

Look at: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, 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, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26.

Separation between what dispensationalism calls Israel - Old Covenant Israel - and what it calls the Church is the issue of separation theology. John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4

Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28 are related to the separation issue, also separating saved Jew from Saved Gentile, or not separating them as Paul teaches

Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20,and Romans 11: 5 is New Testament separation according to being saved or not saved, which is a scriptural separation. Galatians 4: 24-26 is a separation also between the saved and not saved, which is New Covenant doctrine.

Hebrews 10: 9, II Corinthians 3: 6-11 are fundamental and systematic issues between dispensationalist doctrine and New Testament doctrine. In fact, if you accept these two scriptures as being fact, how can you then argue that somehow the Old Covenant is still in effect or will again be in effect in the future? Colossians 2: 16-17 fit in here too, concerning Old Covenant things existing in the New Covenant time.

Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29 are a little bit subtle, but Galatians 3 makes such a fundamental change that this too makes dispensationalism a false doctrine based on what is said in this chapter. Texts must be interpreted to say just the opposite someplace in order to justify dispensationalism. Romans 11: 26 is often used, which contradicts Romans 2: 28-29. Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20. In view of what is taught in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20 the children of God, the saved ones, the elect are distinguished from the mere children of the flesh who are of the bloodline but not saved. All Israel in Romans 11: 26 must then be all the elect, not all of the physical bloodline. But that is not what dispensationalism is about. It is about the multitude and not the remnant.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Read Stephen Sizer's books on Christian Zionism, such as Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon.

If someone came to this thread who had not read comments by the followers of Christian Zionism here recently - and there are more readers who are not TOL members than members - he or she might have no idea what is being argued here, or if some people here are just quarreling for the sake of a quarrel.

One of the reasons why what is being argued is not real clear here is because the argument over dispensationalist doctrines and New Testament scripture has been going on so long here that it gets tiresome saying the same thing over and over, so for entertainment and saying something new, what is often said is not helpful for understanding the issue between dispenmsationalism and scripture. Claiming that dispensationalism is not what that theology is said to be in the literature is part of this tired quarrel.

Look at: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, 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, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26.

Separation between what dispensationalism calls Israel - Old Covenant Israel - and what it calls the Church is the issue of separation theology. John10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4

Romans 10: 12 and Galatians 3: 28 are related to the separation issue, also separating saved Jew from Saved Gentile or not separating them.

Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20,and Romans 11: 5 is New Testament separation according to being saved or not saved, which is a scriptural separation. Galatians 4: 24-26 is a separation also between the saved and not saved, which is New Covenant doctrine.

Hebrews 10: 9, II Corinthians 3: 6-11 are fundamental and systematic issues between dispensationalist doctrine and New Testament doctrine. In fact, if you accept these two scriptures as being fact, how can you then argue that somehow the Old Covenant is still in effect or will again be in effect in the future? Colossians 2: 16-17 fit in here too, concerning Old Covenant things existing in the New Covenant time.

Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29 are a little bit subtle, but Galatians 3 makes such a fundamental change that this too makes dispensationalism a false doctrine based on what is said in this chapter. Texts must be interpreted to say just the opposite someplace in order t0 justify dispensationalism. Romans 11: 26 is often used, which contradicts Romans 2: 28-29. Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20. In view of what is taught in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20 the children of God, the saved ones, the elect are distinguished from the mere children of the flesh who are of the bloodline but not saved. All Israel in Romans 11: 26 must then be all the elect, not all of the physical bloodline. But that is not what dispensationalism is about. It is about the multitude and not the remnant.

You don't have a correct understanding of even basic dispensationalism so this thread is pointless.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
You don't have a correct understanding of even basic dispensationalism so this thread is pointless.





If that's all you can say Must, then you don't either. If you really did, you would have specific points. See my 10 Propositions of NT eschatology thread and start with something like that.

this forum has way to many generalizationists who don't really learn how to talk. Kuddos to Jerry, inspite of disagreable conclusions, he is always on a SPECIFIC question, not all/nothing blanket statements.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The Freemason and Dispensationalist Connection

Darby referenced Free Masonry, but at the same time claimed to not be associated with it:

"It is not of man. Christ is divine "wisdom" for us: God has made foolish the wisdom of this world, but "we speak wisdom among them that are perfect." He has "abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known unto us the mystery of his will." (See Eph. 1: 8-10.) The divine revelation of all God’s thoughts and intentions is in Christ; "the wisdom of God in a mystery," which word means what only the initiated understand: as in Freemasonry, I do not know anything about it because I am not initiated." -

"Deliverance from the Law of Sin", Collected Writings. vol 32. p. 339.

For someone who claimed to not be initiated with it, he sure appeared to understand it:

"Supposing we were a body of Freemasons, and a person were excluded from one lodge by the rules of the order, and instead of looking to the lodge to review the case, if it was thought to be unjust, each other lodge were to receive him or not on their own independent authority, it is clear the unity of the Freemason system is gone. Each lodge is an independent body acting for itself. It is in vain to allege a wrong done, and the lodge not being infallible; the competent authority of lodges, and the unity of the whole, is at an end. The system is dissolved. There may be provision for such difficulties. All right if it be needed. But the proposed remedy is the mere pretension of the superiority of the recusant lodge, and a dissolution of Freemasonry." -

"On Ecclesiastical Independency", The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, John Nelson Darby. Edited by William Kelly. London : G. Morrish, [1867-1900?] 34 vol. ; 8o. vol. 14. p. 305.
 
Top