"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)
Well us LDS don’t have a problem with dispensations as Traditional folks do!
But than when you have the fullness of the Gospel a lot of those kinds of questions are answered.
That reads a lot like something I read in a Catholic thread last week...
“God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the [Catholic] Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”Contrary to the headlines, this does not mean “Christians are saved by Jesus, Jews don’t need him.” Rather, it means that everybody who is saved — including Jews — will find that they have been saved by Jesus Christ at work in the light they have received in their own particular situation. That’s not new. It’s biblical. Here’s how
My impression is increasingly that
God is very much NOT AMUSED.
***You see, good Christian friend, you cannot REASON with a dispensationalist, anymore than you can reason with a Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, or JW. You must proclaim the gospel to them.***
I agree with this, BTW. There is a complete Eschatology in the gospels that is NOT Dispensationalism. At a fundamental level, they don’t even know the gospel. If they truly knew the gospel and the promises the Lord made, they wouldn’t be Dispensationalists.
Huhh? Not in this context, it doesn't
Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie.
No, let's not. Let's change this nonsensical analogy a tad, and talk about a pie. The content of a pie can be apples, cherries, peaches, or rhubarb.
You, see the point of Dispensationalism, is that it is not meant to be understood--only believed.
If the author did understand Dispensationalism, he would know that this statement is nonsense. But, in other words, the author is writing about something which he does not understand.
They, if truly logical, (like Spock logical) SHOULD NOT be Christians. Why? Because, Jesus WAS trying to subvert the state and establish an earthly kingdom. He DID break the Law of God. Therefore, his death did not atone. The Jews were justified in crucifying him.
Double HUHHH. Is the author saying that he believes this nonsense? Or that dispensationalists do? If the latter, he is quite wrong. A pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.
... Because they deny the unity of Scripture but instead chop it up into 7, no 9,--or is it 3? Dispensations, ...
Incorrect. Another pitfall of writing about a subject without understanding it.
I find it quite ironic that the doctrinal system which calls itself "covenant" seems to have as its cornerstone doctrine the misconception that God has abrogated his covenant with Abraham.
And here Mr. Gianello -- already not to be dissuaded from a rather loopy rant -- goes off the tracks. Rather than tell us what the actual author means by "the "content" of our faith, or better yet, let the author explain it for himself, Mr. Gianello decides to careen into a combined strawman/ad hominem attack that answers precisely nothing.
Let’s put this in perspective and talk about something as mundane as apple pie. The BASIS of apple pie is apples. The REQUIREMENT for apple pie are apples. The OBJECT of apple pie is to be eaten. BUT the CONTENT of apple pie changes from dispensation to dispensation.
This is actually a very poor analogy. As it happens, the CONTENT (or "significance") of apple pie really can change from "dispensation to dispensation." Consider: are you baking it for Thanksgiving Dinner? For a bake sale? For your kid's kindergarten play? To impress a girl?
Does this pie have the same significance in each case? Well, no, it does not. So if Mr. Gianello expects his example to prove anything at all, he merely proves what he was trying to disprove.
Now, do you see what I mean by trying to understand Picasso?
I see that Mr. Gianello doesn't understand Picasso ... but it doesn't mean that Picasso can't be understood. All it really signifies is that Mr. Gianello is possibly something of a lightweight. He certainly comes across as an arrogant blowhard.
Only by faith.