Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 12/10/2010 9:41:02 AM PST by topcat54
Wow, with friends like you... maybe American Christians should leave Israel to deal with their “Muslim brothers” seeing they’re not total heretics like us.
Amen brother. That is the meaning of the new covenant. The curtain was torn for good and the temple is now the human heart of all the regenerate, where the Holy Spirit dwells. Any new physical temple would be going backwards and would render the entire book of Hebrews meaningless.
>>I don’t accept your approach since it is not taught in the Bible.<<
I guess you should just stay with your fairy tale approach then.
No, you don’t have to do that.
But, you could buy LS Chafer’s “Systematic Theology”, read it cover to cover (at least 2000 pages in 8 volumes), and then write your own systematic theology, in point by point refutation.
That would be a good start.
Then you could move on to the work of Pentecost, Walvoord, Ryrie, MacArthur, Scofield and Wuest.
Of course, everything I happen to believe comes from a plain, literal, normative reading of Scripture, so a valid beginning and ending to basic dispensational theology doesn’t deviate from the pages of the Bible.
.
That's rich coming from a theological system that promotes all sorts of fairy tail stuff.
He's so dated, I doubt even Dallas grads have to read Chafer anymore.
All in God's time.
The importance of consistent literalism to the dispensationalist cannot be overstated. Dispensationalists like to argue that consistent literalism is their first principle and that the dichotomy and parenthesis theories logically follow from the application of this first principle to the study of Scripture. I believe that the reality is the reverse: dispensational interpretation uses the degree of literalism necessary to interpret prophecy in terms of the dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis assumptions. Beyond this, differing degrees of figurativeness and literality can be found in dispensational interpretations.…
The passage most commonly mentioned in discussions of the difficulty presented by dispensational literalism is Ezekiel's temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). The dispensationalists are looking for a reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices in a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in this passage. Dispensationalists are careful to specify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ's death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord's Supper. The problem with this is that Ezekiel's vision refers to these sacrifices as literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15,17,20; Hebrew: kaphar, atone). Of course, a dispensationalist can go to the book of Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). When the Reformed theologian, however, goes to Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices were done away forever by Christ's once for all offering (Hebrews 10:10-18), then that is "theological interpretation" and "reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament," two practices which dispensationalists routinely criticize.
(Grover Gunn, Dispensationalism: Consistent Literalism)
>>Dispensationalists are careful to specify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ’s death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord’s Supper.<<
They are not “merely memorials of Christ’s death” to the last seven years of God’s covenant with the Jews. When the “age of the Gentiles” ends the Jews will be dealt with as they were before Christ’s death and resurrection. It’s at the end of the seven year Tribulation period that all sacrifice will end for all people. The Jews will then accept Jesus as the Messiah and King.
When the “age of the Gentiles” ends the Jews will be dealt with as they were before Christ’s death and resurrection.
Is that supposed to be a good thing?
It most certainly is! It is at that time that the Jewish Nation finally accepts Jesus as the Messiah and is reconciled to God. It’s the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Israel and ushers in the exile of Satan and the Millennial reign of Jesus after which Satan will be cast into Hell forever.
But Ezekiel 40-48 is about the millennial period, not the “seven years”. At least that's the way most literalist futurists interpret the section. How do you justify your view? Either you are confused or the main body of your fellow literalists are confused.
>>But Ezekiel 40-48 is about the millennial period, not the “seven years”.<<
It is not during the millennial period. It is to take place during the last seven years, during the Tribulation years. Ezek 38-39 describes the battle just prior to the Tribulation period and then Chapters 40-48 follow with a description of the third Temple and the land.
It’s the battle of Ezek 38-39 that sparks the real need for the peace treaty with Israel. Note the seven months to clear bodies and the seven years of burning the weapons. Surely no one would say that those things will happen during the millennial Reign of Jesus.
But the tribulation period is the entire seven year. In fact, isn't Jesus' second coming the only thing that saves Israel from utter destruction?
So it's your contention that in the midst of the worst seven years that Israel as ever faced, with millions being slaughtered (Zech 13:8,9), that all this unabated land development and temple building will be going on?
Ezekiel 40-48 describes a time of peace and prosperity. This is the populist literalist interpretation of Ezekiel. Your interpretation looks to be way off. How does your literalism help? And how can you be so far off from all the other literalists?
>> Ezekiel 40-48 describes a time of peace and prosperity. This is the populist literalist interpretation of Ezekiel.<<
What assumption did you make for the time period between the battle of Ezek 38-39 and the start of the Tribulation?
Are you nuts? Even a casual view of the scriptures demonstrate that the Temple mount is the proper location for Israel’s Temple.
I didn't make any assumptions. I'm only repeating what your literalist futurist cohorts claim. It's my understanding that most futurists believe that Ezekiel 38-39 is sometime during the seven year "great tribulation." According to their theory, it must be after the rapture of the Church since it is only after that time that God starts dealing with Israel again. And according to their theory, Ezekiel 40-48 is during the millennium.
Perhaps.
Even a casual view of the scriptures demonstrate that the Temple mount is the proper location for Israel’s Temple.
It does? Where?
>>I didn’t make any assumptions.<<
YOU don’t make assumptions? YOU are deluding yourself. YOU have made the assumption, for one, that I agree with “those”, whoever they are, that Ezek 38-39 occurs “sometime during the great tribulation”. I don’t. YOU assume that I agree that “it must be after the rapture of the Church” which I don’t. YOU assume that I agree Ezekiel 40-48 is during the millennium. I don’t.
If your disagreement is with “them” then I would suggest you discuss your differences with “them”. I don’t agree with “them” so using “their” beliefs to discuss something with me is foolish and ASSUMPTION that I care what “they” believe.
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.