Posted on 09/02/2004 5:19:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Congregationalism in no way arises from Dispensationalism...
I don't think I said it did, I commented that most D's are of Arminian baptist types and congregational in their ecclesiology, without comments on congregationalism arising from Dispensationalism. I was merely pointing out the connection, not the cause.
Dispensationalists don't have a corner on the market here. Lots of non-dispies believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture.
Specifically, by ecclesiology I meant, "Is the church a new man, distinct from Israel (as Scripture says), or is it a transmogrified, haha-fooled-you 'spiritual Israel' (as Scripture NEVER says)?"
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands -- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2) {Notice that Paul calls the older covenant a "covenant of promise". Paul bring gentiles close to the "commonwealth of Israel" by their faith in Christ. Why would he confuse people with this sort of language unless to make a point about the true meaning of "Israel"?}For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (Rom. 2)
... you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ... But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD , A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY, but now you have RECEIVED MERCY. (1 Peter 2) {Peter couldn't have been speaking of the church, now could he? How could he dare use language specifically directed to Israel to speak of the church? Wouldn't that just confuse "dispensationally-minded" people?}
James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad: Greetings. (James 1) {Here is James, an apostle of the church, writing to Christians and referring to them as "the twelve tribes". Is he just dispensationally confused?}
Could he not be referring to the twelve tribes who happen to be Christians?
Yes, those are the cliche'd responses -- none of which teaches what you you're trying to produce. Yet dozens of times, all over the NT, "Israel," "Israel," "Israel" -- every time meaning (surprise!) "Israel."
So how have Dispensationalists responded to your pulling those verses out of their contexts in the past?
Dan
He left a note, a long one filled with lots of Scriptural proof text, but it must have blown away in the thunderstorm God brought.
AGW. 8~)
Many evangelicals, as betrayed by their worship, doctrine, practice, and attitudes about the faith and church, fall under this indictment. Truly, we ALL are so indicted except by a sovereign work of grace to change our hearts, and even then a lifelong struggle ensues. "O wretched man that I am..."
cut the crap nf - having been here a few years and after lurking several before that - I can make that assertion - and I dont have to back it up to satisfy the disingenuous need you have to ultimately pick it apart -
Rather - my impression generally is that the grpl - and calvinism as a whole makes God the author of sin - It an opinion - get over it - Im allowed to have it
As for your question Alex - again IMO - so dont let the shorts get bunched up
Yup = I consider some calvinists here to be in agreement with this
nope = I consider some calvinists here to be in disagreement with this
(yup) that God is the author of sin and of evil
(yup)that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
(nope)that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
(nope)that it is wrong to evangelize
(nope)that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
(yup)that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
(yup)that God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
(nope) - you guys state that mysteriously they are saved - even the unelect)that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
(yup)that God does not command everyone to repent
(still scratching head)that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
(yup) that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
(yup)that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
(havent seen this discussed)that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
(yup) that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
(havent seen it discussed)that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
(some)that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)(Im in a quandry on this one as Ive been told here I can be elect and saved despite my arminianism - and Ive also been called a heretic for rejecting calvinism)
again - these are all my opinion based on my experiences here- Im challenging no one - nor accusing anyone - It my simply impression
True, and nowhere in the NT does it speak of any promise to Israel apart from the church. Surprise.
So how have Dispensationalists responded to your pulling those verses out of their contexts in the past?
Please demonstrate where I have taken anything out of context.
Exactly. But that would be "dispensationally confusing" to use language about Israel to refer to the church.
"Elder-rule" without plurality is a form of episcopacy, one man rule without the hierarchy. Besides, elder rule in congregationalism is an oxymoron. The congregation can always vote out the "ruler".
When elders and churches are mentioned in the NT it is always the plural form. "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. " (Acts 20:17; cf Acts 15:2) "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you," (1 Tim. 1:5; not "an elder")
Single elder rule is on shakier ground than infant baptism. :-)
If so, then no. There are so many ~personal~ definitions of Hyper-Calvinism out there -each definition suiting the individual defining it.
That is a fair statement.
And here I was just saying something nice about you, Rev, to another GRPL member.
None of those points is held by any Calvinist on earth. Period. But humanists rewrite the word of God to suit their inclinations.
God does not "do" evil. But ALL things are by the hand of God. Hurricane Frances is not blowing on its own. It does so because God wills it to churn. It makes more sense to believe in no God than in a God who is ineffectual; who stands by and watches destruction which He could prevent if He so desired.
It is all of God, or none of it is of God. That's election; predestination; salvation; grace; TULIP; peace.
IMO when a poster raises the tenor of the discussion to crude dialogue, it can sometimes mean they're looking to get other posters banned. Certain popcorn gifs are a tell.
So let's all play nice.
It was despicable that MacArthur was erased from the airwaves. Sorta like Steve was erased from the forum. The truth of the Doctrines of Grace is loathsome to those who do not hear it.
His view does fit in with his Calvinist view of the world. I just don't think it is Biblical.
No network or broadcaster owes MacArthur a forum for his preaching.
Sorta like Steve was erased from the forum.
What happened to predestination? Isn't it all of God? Doesn't drstevej have any responsibility? drstevej was banned for obvious reasons and he did it to himself.
As God wills.
please Dr. - NF - came at it with a chip on his shoulder
So let's all play nice.
fair enough
It was despicable that MacArthur was erased from the airwaves. Sorta like Steve was erased from the forum. The truth of the Doctrines of Grace is loathsome to those who do not hear it.
Steve was no MacArthur.....he got two more breaks than anyone else has and continued to refuse the grace that was offered him.
Thanks for the kind words to a fellow grpler - and I may seem po'd today - but I have lousy days just like everyone else
I'll pray for a clearer heart
hope all is well with you
dont let the popcorn gifs get to you - theyre meant tongue in cheek (no pun intended)
I missed this prize LOL - What you talkin bout Willis ?........you calling me humanist or MacArthur? LOL
Like Israel, the church was meant to serve God. Without casting dispersions at anyone (for I fail as well), I see little genuine sacrificial serving of God. Instead, since man has "free will", we have reduce God down into a "homeboy" rather than our leader and champion. God is still sovereign. We just no longer recognize it.
BTW-It was through listening to a tape on the sovereignty of God by John MacArthur that lead me towards the Calvinist side of the tracks.
Hiya, Rev. Happy Convention Finale day!
The popcorn gifs are okay, as long as no one chokes on them and dies.
Pray for all our hearts.
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.