Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dispensationalism and the Teachings of Christ and Paul On the Pharisee Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Gotcher writes that "THE DIALECTICAL PROCESS IS SO-CALLED SCIENCE

    "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20, 21

    Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. Therefore let no man glory in men. 1 Corinthians 3:18-21

    In the didactic, patriarchal paradigm analysis reveals whether you know the truth, whether you heard it (ears that can hear―faith comes by hearing), and whether you comprehend the truth (based upon obedience, not based upon intellectual-experiential understanding, i.e. Gnostic). You must obey the truth (faith, belief), and apply the truth as directed (be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only)."

    "Obedience towards God is not possible in our flesh, it is only available to us in the person of God's Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, who sanctifies us (Jesus as Lord), can only dwell within us when we have been redeemed by the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus (Jesus as Savior). The Son of God redeems us from condemnation, condemnation upon all who either reject God and his law or try to obey it in their own effort, i.e. legalism or licentiousness. What is not possible in our natural self is only possible in God's work in us, i.e. we are saved by faith and not by works. "

    Comment


    • #17
      You obviously care nothing about an intellectual discussion on this subject.

      Comment


      • #18
        As far as I know Dean Gotcher has not dealt specifically with dispensationalism, unlike James Lloyd who is under the influence of Gotcher.

        But Gotcher provides us with a very good set of ideas for revealing the rebellion of dispensationalism against some basic New Testament doctrines. The Protestant doctrines which we inherited came out of the Reformation which grew from the work of Bible scholars of the Northern Renaissance - or Erasmus. After the original work of men like Martin Luther, William Tyndale and John Calvin, successors created a more systematic partly man made theology from that original work, and part of this systematic theology is known as Five Point Calvinism. Dispensationalism was a man made systematic theology from its start.

        See https://www.authorityresearch.com/Ar...istianity.html

        "Dialectical Christianity: the praxis of heresy, by Dean Gotcher" By the Greek "praxis"
        he means practice.

        Gotcher does not get into any specific practice of heresy, of which
        dispensationalism is one type, though the most popular now. Heresy has to be defined as holding to doctrines that are contrary to the doctrines of the New Testament, and/or oppose some basic doctrines of the New Testament - such as the doctrines given in Hebrews 8: 6-7, 13 and II Corinthians 3: 7-11

        In the New Testament heresy is used four times, in Acts 24: 14, I Corinthians 11: 19, in Galatians 5: 20 and in II Peter 2: 1. For example II Peter 2: 1 says "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

        Heresies is from αιρεσεις. See https://biblehub.com/greek/139.htm

        "(Strong"s Number) 139. hairesis, Definition: choice, opinion
        Usage: a self-chosen opinion, a religious or philosophical sect, discord or contention."

        Then Dean Gotcher says "Dialectical trickery can only be accomplished by shifting a person's paradigm from an obedience-based environment (Jesus Christ in the wilderness) to an evaluation based environment."

        Gotcher uses Genesis 3: 1-7 as an example of Dialectical Trickery."

        "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
        2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
        3. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
        4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
        5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
        6. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

        "Example of dialectical trickery used in the court system.

        The Law:
        "Every system of law known to civilized society generated from or had as its component one of two well known systems of ethics, stoic or Christian. The COMMON LAW draws its subsistence from the latter, its roots go deep into that system, the Christian concept of right and wrong or right and justice motivates every rule of equity. It is the guide by which we dissolve domestic friction's and the rule by which all legal controversies are settled." Strauss Vs. Strauss., 3 So. 2nd 727, 728, (1941)

        The dialectical trickery of the court
        "There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics." ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 15, (1973)"

        The dialectic is opposition to God and to the Word of God, including the morals stated in the word of God. Our Common Law was substantially derived from that Moral Law given by God. But the Supreme Court decision in 1973 making abortion legal in the U.S. was based upon a rebellion against God and his Word and moral law, as the legalization of abortion was based upon the eugenics movement.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by northwye View Post
          But Gotcher provides us with a very good set of ideas for revealing the rebellion of dispensationalism against some basic New Testament doctrines.
          Like what?

          What does Gotcher say about the meaning of Paul's words in the following passage?:

          "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. 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"
          (Ro.11:25-26).

          Comment


          • #20
            On Romans 11: 25-26 I am not sure that Gotcher would say. I will ask him and see if he will answer.

            I am pretty sure he knows what Calvin's view of Romans 11: 25-26 is, though I do not think he is a follower of Calvin in general.

            Romans 11: 26, is a text which has to be interpreted by use of other texts in Romans 11, especially Romans 11: 17-24. If interpreted as dispensationalism does, as standing alone, and as saying that "all Israel" is the multitude of physical Israel, then there is a contradiction with Romans 11: 17-24. How can some of Old Covenant Israel, as a multitude, be broken off the Good Olive Tree, but then all the Multitude of Old Covenant Israel are saved. This has to be interpreted by common sense logic, which is what Calvin does in saying that in verse 26 "all Israel" refers to all who are saved, which would agree with what Paul says in Galatians 6: 15-16 that all those who are a new creation - regardless of their genetics - belong to the Israel of God. But being in rebellion against this kind of doctrine, dispensationalism cannot go there.
            Last edited by northwye; March 11th, 2019, 03:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by northwye View Post
              Romans 11: 26, is a text which has to be interpreted by use of other texts in Romans 11, especially Romans 11: 17-24.
              We must go back to the original promise concerning the New Covenant promised to Israel in order to understand what Paul wrote at Romans 11:

              "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more"
              (Jer.31:31-34).

              The LORD says that He will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The "fathers" of those who will partake of this covenant were the children of Israel whom the Lord redeemed out of Egypt and the same people who broke His covenant (Jer.11:1-8). Since the "fathers" of these future members of the houses of Israel and Judah were the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then that can only mean that in the future the members of both houses will also be the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

              And all of those physical descendants will know the LORD and all of them will have their sins forgiven. Just like Paul said, "All Israel shall be saved."

              Comment


              • #22
                The problem is that an argument from the Old Testament cannot overthrow a doctrine of the New Testament, which says that there is a unity between saved Jews and saved Gentiles. This is not a doctrine interpreted from New Testament texts that are ambiguous. The New Testament texts which say there is a unity between saved Gentiles and saved Jews are clear, with no uncertainty over whether the answer is Yes or No.

                It is dispensationalism which as a man made theology asserts itself in opposition to these New Testament texts, so that to a dispensationalist who cannot question this theology there can be no New Testament doctrine saying saved Gentiles and saved Jews are in unity. In fact, this is one fundamental doctrine of the New Testament. That the Old Testament was done away with by Christ is another such basic doctrine.

                And so in the New Testament those of the physical bloodline who are saved and those saved who are not of the physical bloodline are one and the same in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, dispensationalism would replace the Gospel with another Gospel, itself.

                Even a dispensationalist who claims to be a Christian should know what these New Testament scriptures are which teach that there is such a unity between saved Gentiles and Saved Jews.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by northwye View Post
                  The problem is that an argument from the Old Testament cannot overthrow a doctrine of the New Testament, which says that there is a unity between saved Jews and saved Gentiles.
                  All you do is the put a foreign meaning on New Testament texts in order to deny what is plainly revealed in the OT.

                  Paul places the fulfillment of the New Covenant promised to Israel in the FUTURE when the Deliverer will turn away all ungodliness from Jacob (Israel):
                  "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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).

                  Your eschatolgy has no place for this event to be fulfilled. Likewise, your eschatlogy has no place for the following promise which the LORD made to David to be fulfilled:

                  "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime"
                  (2 Sam.7:10).

                  We can see that this promise will be fulfilled in the future in the land which the LORD gave to Jacob:

                  "Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God"
                  (Ez.28:25-26).

                  There has never been a time when the children of Israel were brought back to the land the LORD gave Jacob and their enemies ceased from afflicting them.

                  Your eschatology is a denial of the plain words of God. According to you the LORD made promises to David but He will never fulfill those promises.
                  Last edited by Jerry Shugart; March 11th, 2019, 07:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I know of three New Testament texts which say that there is a unity between saved Jews and Saved Gentiles and all three are in Paul's writings. Since the New Testament states this doctrine in three different texts, with exactly the same meaning, this must be an important and basic New Testament doctrine.

                    There is no argument of the dialectic which can overthrow this doctrine. Forget trying to argue against it.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by northwye View Post
                      There is no argument of the dialectic which can overthrow this doctrine. Forget trying to argue against it.
                      There is no way that you can give a rational explanation which defends your denial of what is clearly stated in the OT. That is why you don't even try to defend your ideas.

                      Originally posted by northwye View Post
                      The problem is that an argument from the Old Testament cannot overthrow a doctrine of the New Testament, which says that there is a unity between saved Jews and saved Gentiles.
                      All you do is the put a foreign meaning on New Testament texts in order to deny what is plainly revealed in the OT.

                      Paul places the fulfillment of the New Covenant promised to Israel in the FUTURE when the Deliverer will turn away all ungodliness from Jacob (Israel):
                      "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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:26-27).

                      Your eschatolgy has no place for this event to be fulfilled. Likewise, your eschatlogy has no place for the following promise which the LORD made to David to be fulfilled:

                      "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime"
                      (2 Sam.7:10).

                      We can see that this promise will be fulfilled in the future in the land which the LORD gave to Jacob:

                      "Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God"
                      (Ez.28:25-26).

                      There has never been a time when the children of Israel were brought back to the land the LORD gave Jacob and their enemies ceased from afflicting them.

                      Your eschatology is a denial of the plain words of God. According to you the LORD made promises to David but He will never fulfill those promises.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        One tactic of the dialectic is to attribute to the opponent motives, positions and ideas that are not accurate to what the opponent has said and paint him in a negative way.

                        And so the Chief Dispensationalist Verbal Wrestler on Theology Online has tried to defend dispensationam by use of texts from the Old Testament and by some of the tactics of the dialectic.

                        This defense and promotion of dispensationalism has shown that the theology is an opposition to central doctrines of the New Testament, an attempt to replace New Testament doctrine on the doing away with the Old Covenant in Hebrews 8 and II Corinthians 3: 7-11 and the doctrine that saved Jews and Saved Gentiles are in unity (Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 and Colossians 3: 11) with the dispensationalist doctrine that Old Covenant Israel of the flesh will be restored sometime in the future and that saved Jews, especially in the first century, remain "rightly divided" and separate from the saved Gentiles.

                        This shows that dispensationalism is a man made theology of the churches which is in opposition to and is trying to overthrow key New Testament doctrines.

                        At this point for this thread, the thread might as well be closed, if no others are interested in posting on it, since otherwise what was said before will just be repeated.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by northwye View Post
                          And so the Chief Dispensationalist Verbal Wrestler on Theology Online has tried to defend dispensationam by use of texts from the Old Testament and by some of the tactics of the dialectic.
                          You defend your view by asserting that even though the LORD made promises to David He will never fulfill those promises.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X