Posted on 06/17/2005 11:15:25 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
At least I know its spelled SCOFIELD. (No "h".) ;-).
I think the point in C.S.Lewis' statement (Post#26)is one has to use the Gospels to make the case He is a great moral teacher or rabbi and you can't then take some of Jesus'statements and his ethics as true and reject the other claims he makes for Himself in the same Gospels. It is not the excluded middle as much as selective choosing.
As I recall, the selective quoting isn't really the purview of that chapter of Mere Christianity, but rather "the shocking alternatives" that Christ allowed us to conclude regarding himself. Yours is an interesting nuance, however.
Perhaps you are right, jude. How can you trust a theologian who doesn't even know how to spell his own name?
Hold it you guys, I've just been accused of nuancing. That has to be one of the lowest cuts ever used on this forum. I'm a mind to appealing to the moderator. Next you will be telling me you don't believe the story about Christmas in Cambodia. I want you to know I spelled it Scofield before I posted it as Schofield.
Bookmark for later read...thanks for posting.
Haven't we been down this road before? Didn't you claim then you couldn't continue if I couldn't conform to your thought?
Sorry were it another, though the pattern seems familiar.
Fearing God, hence all else less, I yet trust in His Goodness.
In that case, I was meking sure you've read the book of Maccabees and giving you some background as to their validity and source. They provide an excellent history of how the Jews established a free nation in the third century BC
I don't think so.
Didn't you claim then you couldn't continue if I couldn't conform to your thought?
That would not be me.
Fearing God, hence all else less, I yet trust in His Goodness.
Are the Old Testament scriptures reliable?
"In that case, I was meking sure you've read the book of Maccabees. . . ."
Thank you.
As reliable as God.
Are there any New Testament scriptures that you would give the same honor to?
Interesting? Yes. Divinely inspired? I don't think so. Though neither would I presume as to how God works.
Thanks tc. I reread Daniel several times now and see the dispensational premillennialism view must relate to just a very tiny section. I've reviewed several articles on the various viewpoints but, quite frankly, I'm just lost in all of this "end times" stuff.
All I know is Satan and God do not duel. God is in control and will work things according to His plan.
All I know is Satan and God do not duel. God is in control and will work things according to His plan.
Amen. Reading dispies articles sometimes makes you wonder who's in control.
Here's a few helpful quotes and links:
Allis begins his summation of the Traditional perspective by acknowledging the points of agreement with Dispensationalism, chiefly that the seventy weeks represent weeks of years, a total of 490 years; that only one period of weeks is described, as is proved by the fact that the subdivisions (7+62+1) when added together give a total of 70; that the "anointed one, the prince" of verse 25 and the "anointed one" of verse 26 are the same person, the Messiah; and that the first 69 weeks or 483 years had their terminus in the period of the first advent–their fulfillment is long past.[17] He then focuses on the two chief differences between the Traditional and Dispensational schools of interpretation. First, the question of whether or not the great events described in vs. 24 have been fulfilled, or are yet future; second, the issue of whether or not the 70th week is past or future.[18] Dispensationalists take the futurist perspective on both questions, a development Reiter freely acknowledges to be of 19th century origin. The latter locates the genesis of the futuristic position on Daniel's 70th week to a time just subsequent to the introduction of the futuristic approach to the Apocalypse in 1826 by Samuel R. Maitland.[19] John Nelson Darby, the central figure in Brethrenism and "founder of dispensationalism," then advanced the position that a "gap existed between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks, with the result that the seventieth week is still future."[20]Who is the Israel of God Today? from TABLE TALK Official Publication of the LMS-USA May 2002 Volume 9, Number 2
Dispensationalism incorporates a gap or parenthesis between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. This gap spans the entirety of the Church Age from the Triumphal Entry to the Rapture.[36] The dispensational arguments for a gap of undetermined length between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks are not convincing. Let us consider a few of their leading arguments for a gap.
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and Biblical Prophecy
Gap theory: This theory comes from assuming that there a gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniels prophecy, and that the 70th week occurs at the end of time and is the time of the great tribulation. Just why there should be a gap of two thousand years between the 69th and 70th week is rather puzzling to me. Although it is required to produce a future seven year tribulation, this is eisegesis rather than exegesis (reading your ideas into scripture rather than getting your ideas from scripture). If there is not a gap between the first seven and the 62 seven's then why should there be a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks? Under dispensationalism this gap is called the church age parenthesis. One interpretation that I like is that the start of the seventieth week refers to the start of the ministry of Jesus, he was crucified in the middle of the week and the end of the week corresponds to the Gentiles coming to Christ (Cornelius).
Hmmm. My Bible doesn't have a 400 year silent period in it.
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.