Posted on 05/22/2015 4:54:44 PM PDT by OK Sun
I have been taught Dispensationalism from my mother’s womb. I was born in a dispensational environment. It was assumed at my church to be a part of the Gospel. There was never another option presented. It made sense. It helped me put together the Scriptures in a way that cleared up so much confusion. And, to be honest, the emphasis on the coming tribulation, current events that prove the Bible’s prophecy, the fear that the Antichrist may be alive today (who is he?) was all quite exciting. But what might be the biggest attraction for me is the charts! Oh how I love charts. I think in charts. And dispensationalism is a theology of charts!
The first time I came across someone who was not a Dispensationalist was in 1999. I am not kidding. It was the first time! I don’t think I even knew if there was another view. It was when I was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary (the bastion of Dispensationalism) and I was swimming with some guys who were at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Once they discovered I was a dispensationalist, they giggled and snickered. They made fun of the rapture, the sacrificial system during the millennium, and the mark of the beast (which, at that time, was some type of barcode). It was as if they patted me on the head and said “It’s okay . . . nice little dispensationalist.” I was so angry. I was humiliated. I was a second-rate theologian. They were “Covenantalists” (whatever that was). But they were the cool guys who believed in the historic Christian faith and I was the cultural Christian, believing in novel ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at reclaimingthemind.org ...
Prior to early in 2006, I wasn’t very far into the question, and was still trying to make sense of pre-trib dispensationalism.
In 2006 I was introduced to the work of Mark Biltz, who is a Messianic in Oregon. From there I began to read Sid Roth’s work.
Its kind of like working a big puzzle with half of the picture on the cover on the box being from a different puzzle.
Finally I got directed to Jim Staley who filled in some understanding from the prophets that I had glossed over many times without understanding what they were saying.
Life is a learning process.
It sounds like you spent a LOT of time in man’s books. Did you have God’s word beside those books to search to see if those things you were reading were so?
Thanks, ES. I’m not trying to pry. Just curious and putting things in context. Weren’t you on the free will side in the debates back during the Calvin Wars here on Free Republic?
No reason to bother with Duke; he’ll pick up on anything he can make a fuss with, whether he understands it or not.
Duke obviously got it from Talmud, when looking for stuff to attack Jews with.
On the free will question, I’ve never been solid.
I do believe that Yehova has had an election from the foundation, but wonder if that means he uses his Godly power to guide, or simply saw what was.
I think now that it is not necessary to understand this.
.
I thought Matt. 23:3 meant simply: Obey the word of God, even if it is spoken by hypocrites, only do not live like them.
I’ve spent little time in any book but God’s word.
The question in Matthew 23 is foundational to the continuity of the NT writings, so I did read two books on that particular issue, one of which was by one of the translators of the Dead sea scrolls.
>> “I thought Matt. 23:3 meant simply: Obey the word of God, even if it is spoken by hypocrites, only do not live like them.” <<
.
The words of the Pharisees are in no way “The Word of God.”
They are in almost every case in direct contradiction of the Word of God, so it would make no sense for Yeshua to tell his disciples to obey them.
The commandments of the Pharisees are the heavy burden that was lifted from their shoulders by Yeshua.
.
In other words “Even if a hypocrite gives you God’s word, it’s STILL God’s word. Accept it as that, only don’t live as they live, a hypocrite.” You don’t think that makes sense?
“So just as Enoch was taken out before the first wrath, so shall we.”
Enoch has nothing to do with it. Noah, however, does. And Noah was not taken out before the first wrath (Noah’s Flood), Noah was taken through. All those not in the Ark were taken out, taken to Judgement.
"What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice."
IOW: It matters not to Paul HOW Christ is preached, provided He IS PREACHED.
You’ve got about a month longer on FR than I do. We’re both old timers and remember when there was no religion forum at all, the near war that came about when it was implemented, the calvin wars, and Mormon wars. Many changes.
I would have bet that you sided with us “whosoever will” Christians back at that time. I know you were a dispensationalist.
In any case, the “whosoever will” question is a Gordian Knot, but I’ve always sensed the tone of scripture to be inviting anyone whether they respond or not.
It’s relationship to dispensationalism is the issue of the necessity to ‘choose’ during the tribulation that apparently is going to come down hard on every living soul.
I have no doubt that God can protect His people, but He obviously hasn’t always done so in a physical well-being sense. Persecution in our day in the middle east is horrific, and if the pattern of great blessing coming from great suffering is repeated, then something is afoot.
“He 11: 35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection. 36 Some faced jeers and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were put to death by stoning;[e] they were sawed in two; they were killed by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38 the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, living in caves and in holes in the ground.
39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.”
I believe all will become much more clear shortly about all of these questions we are discussing regarding dispensationalism. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
No{
They did not give God’s word, they gave the commandments of men, just like the catholics do today.
“Its relationship”....should proof read, shouldn’t I?
.
>> “He obviously hasn’t always done so in a physical well-being sense” <<
.
Why do you assume that to be so?
Did he protect Daniel and his disciples?
My guess on that question is that he really did redirect the pain, like for example when Stephen was stoned, I do not believe that he was allowed to feel the blows.
I am now convinced that when believers refuse the mark, they will not suffer the pain of their deaths. I believe that Daniel and his disciples were evidence that God does protect his own, always.
Dispensationalism is “Rosemary’s Baby.”
I think Jesus felt the pain.
Therefore, His martyrs feel the pain. Besides, Hebrews 11 says they were tortured. The very word itself implies pain.
I never watched it...nor “The Exorcist”
I’ve always been tended toward not watching things I’m supposed to watch.
Again, the Pharisees did not preach any part of the word of God.
You haven’t missed anything!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.