Posted on 03/23/2009 11:32:12 AM PDT by topcat54
Thank you for admitting that about yourself topcat. We may make a dispensationalist of you yet.
Obviously you apply the same techniques to the Bible that you do to my comments. Slice and dice.
According to your biblicism, I already am. After all, if you can disagree with some major points of dispensationalism and still consider yourself one, then I'm there.
Where do I pick up my card?
Well, you can choose to live in the OT as if the NT does not exist, or you can read Paul’s infallible explanation of all the promises given to Abraham and the Seed with their typological importance, pointing, as they do, to the heavenly reality.
It’s odd that none of the NT writers take you carnal view of the land promise. In fact, they even confuse the issue with language like we find in Hebrews 11, spiritualizing the land promises for the OT saints. Hardly the dispensational approach to the OT.
It’s odd that none of the NT writers take you carnal view of the land promise.
In fact, Paul, when he enumerates the benefits the Jews enjoyed, did not see fit to explicitly mention the land at all:
Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
And
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
All of which benefits serve to increase their guilt for their unbelief.
“Well, you can choose to live in the OT as if the NT does not exist, or you can read Paul’s infallible explanation of all the promises given to Abraham and the Seed with their typological importance, pointing, as they do, to the heavenly reality.”
When do you suppose that the Patriarchs and Joshua and Nehemiah figured out that the land they thought they were promised was not really what God meant when He made the “eternal covenant” with them?
When did all of the people who died during the wilderness wanderings for not believing that God had actually given them the land find out they were right and the land was not theirs?
When do you suppose that the Patriarchs and Joshua and Nehemiah figured out that the land they thought they were promised was not really what God meant when He made the “eternal covenant” with them?
Later
39 And all these (old testament saints), though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised,
40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
“Later”
“did not receive what was promised,”
They won’t receive all of the promised land until we, the church, receive our inheritance. That is why the verse says “that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” Once again, there is the “us-they” dichotomy.
That’s immaterial. We do not live anymore with the expectations of the ancient Israelites. No one does. They expectations were based entirely on the coming of Messiah. Guess what, He’s arrived and His salvation is with Him to all who call upon His name. You don’t get that the land promise was merely a pointer to Messiah and His heavenly kingdom, the new heavens and new earth, where all the saints will dwell eternally. The writer of Hebrews certainly did.
This world is going to be burned up. The unstable, insignificant plot of ground in the middle east that today houses antichristian forces will one day be no more. Jews and Muslims are fighting over that which they will never obtain nor enjoy in this world. Only by embracing the Prince of peace will they receive their eternal land grant. And then they will see the foolishness of focusing on dirt. Sadly, many Christians only encourage them in their foolish, carnal pursuits.
"But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." (Heb. 11:16)
God is not ashamed with anyone who longs to abide with Him in the eternal city. Those today who long for carnal satisfaction, well, “they have their reward”.
“Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matt. 5:12)
“That’s immaterial. We do not live anymore with the expectations of the ancient Israelites”
That must be news to them and to us who always thought the promises of God are sure.
They are sure. They just aren't carnal.
Just what is the land promise exactly and how does it need to be fulfilled, according to The System®, in order for God to be proved faithful? Tell us, if you can.
Of course the Bible does not say anywhere that one group of saints needs to get out of the way for God to fulfill promises to another group of saints. That is just a raw assertion based on the requirements of The System®.
That is why the verse says “that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” Once again, there is the “us-they” dichotomy.
In the famous words of Inigo Montoya,” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
How about Spurgeon, whom you quote on your homepage. He held to the doctrines of grace, but disagreed with infant baptism. Was it wrong to call him a Calvinist?
Does one have to have 100% homogeneity in every single belief before one can call oneself by a common nickname? If so, then your beliefs are surely Topcatism - which frankly sounds a bit like Tom Cruise left Scientology and created his own religion.
No, I was just trying to give you a language familiar to your own study.
The difference between Spurgeon, most Reformed folks, including myself (on the one hand) and you on the other hand is that I can point to a set of Confessions and affirm that I agree with about 99% of what is written. Where I disagree is mostly immaterial to the foundation of the Confession. IOW, most Reformed folks are Confessional by conviction. For example, my friend raynearhood and I may disagree on the baptism matter, but that is not considered central to Reformed thinking based on objective standards like the Westminster or London Confessions.
But where do you stand wrt other dispensationalists on the things that make dispensationalism dispensationalism? What document or confession can you cite as a sufficient representation of your system? You claim that the Church and the Church age are somehow different in that you allow for OT saints in the Church and thus present at the Rapture. That appears to deny a fundamental tenet of dispensationalism.
It's difficult to see the parallel between where you are coming from (the biblicist) and were most Reformed folks like myself are coming from. That's just the way it is?
I’d have never thought that such threads would turn into comedy threads! LOL.
WHAT UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH.
Should be interesting to watch The Lord’s . . . educational efforts to disabuse people of such UNBIBLICAL NONSENSE.
MORE
IMPORTANTLY
God is not amused with such trashing of HIS WORD
AND HIS PROMISES TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB.
Hey, Q-man, I realize that, in spite of Titus 3, it may be hard for you to resist the temptation to spew chucks at every opportunity, but how 'bout you go look for you Bible, dust it off, and then come back with something a little deeper than a baby's wading pool. Trust us, we can handle it.
Spurgeon, first and foremost, was a Baptist. As such, he would not have held any creed or confession as inspired. It would not have been authoritative to his belief system. He may have pointed to something such as the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 as something he affirmed; but Baptists are non-creedal. He too, was a biblicist. And, he would have disagreed with the Reformed on far more things than just infant baptism. Ecclesiology would be another example of where he would disagree.
As for me and my fellow dispensationalists, we do not have to agree on every piece of doctrine, and the things you name are HARDLY central tenets of dispensationalism, regardless of how Topcat would like to label them.
Charles Ryrie’s belief system differs from Scofield’s and they both differ from Lindsey. On key points, we are in unity. Why? Because we all read them in Scripture. The Rapture is a key tenet of dispensationalism. Lose the rapture and you can no longer call yourself a dispensationalist. Whether or not Abraham gets raptured is a secondary matter and immaterial to dispensational belief. Another key tenet is Israel. We are not, nor shall we ever be, replacementarians. We do not find such teaching in Scripture, and your arguments are not persuasive.
The names of the dispensations and their number are also of secondary importance. Some see 3 dispensations, some see 4, some see 7. Paul speaks of a dispensation of grace, so that part is informed through Scripture. The rest are found in concepts, but the names thereof are more for convenience sake - much like the points of the TULIP are. They aren’t unbiblical and do not contradict Scripture. They are organizational devices based upon what one sees IN Scripture. Some theologians organize them differently but all take their hints from Scripture.
I believe that Abraham is part of the dead in Christ. So, I believe he will be raptured - that is his body will be glorified. I believe that is consistent with many other teachers of the dispensational point of view’s teachings - but even if it were not - I believe it is consistent with Scripture. Their teaching is not authoritative nor is any man-made organizational devise such as a creed. Scripture is the authority we take our stand on. And God made it so that as iron sharpening iron, not all of the answers would be so clear cut - that we could debate these things amongst ourselves and still be kindred spirits.
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.