Posted on 05/25/2014 6:31:35 PM PDT by wmfights
Dartuser, you have not been listening to yourself, nor to many other dispensationalists. The internet, bookstores and airways are flooded with the false, new-age doctrine of dispensationalism, interwoven with a myriad of their false prophecies. Dispensationalists have become so brainwashed by their new-age doctrine they no longer believe they are being loud (and nasty,) but rather think they are being "helpful."
I realize that is typical cult behavior; but I am still amazed how easily a nasty, vindictive charlatan like John Nelson Darby, and a convicted felon like Cyrus Ingerson Schofield (convicted and served time for fraud, of course) could gain such a following. This is the legendary Charles Spurgeon in 1869, quoting from a book by another legend, James Grant, titled, "The religious tendencies of the times; or, How to deal with the deadly errors and dangerous delusions of the day," on the arrogance of Darby's cult:
"No one ever saw a Darbyite at any of our Bible, or Missionary, or other Evangelical Society meetings. The Brethren look upon all other denominations, however evangelical in sentiment, and however high their standard of personal religion, as so largely infected with error in doctrine, as well as wrong in relation to church government, that they believe it would be sinful to associate with them for the promotion of religious ends. And this conviction, which is never absent from their minds, naturally has the effect of puffing them up with spiritual pride. Believing that they alone of all religious bodies have attained to the knowledge of the truth, it could hardly be otherwise than that they should look down on every other Christian sect with supreme pity, mingled, even according to the admission of some of their own number, with contempt. . . ."
http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm
I believe you will find Charles Spurgeon was a straight shooter.
One other point: dispensationalists defend Scofield's criminal past by claiming "he threw away his past and was saved," or something to that effect. If he was "saved" why did he not reconcile with his daughters whom he had abandoned early on? Some Christian he was . . .
>>>You really should go the way of Chilton ... realize your inconsistencies and go with Full Preterism and get it over with ... you're gonna blow a gasket soon.<<<
Is he a preterist? I wasn't sure. If so, your recommendation is about the nuttiest thing I have heard from you. Believing the doctrine of a preterist would be almost as difficult as believing dispensationalism. In either case, I would have to throw the King James Version out the window and embrace man-made doctrine: in the case of dispensationalism, the new-age, man-made doctrine of a very large and dangerous cult. No thanks.
Philip
Heb 8:8-9 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.Second, The first covenant and it’s accompanying law is a type of the second covenant and it’s accompanying law. The first time the law was written on the tables, the second time it was written on the hearts. Neither covenant made the promise of none effect. I believe the promise is twofold, first to the natural man, second to the spiritual man.
>>>Preterism is the easiest theological system to dispense with, but they scream the loudest when challenged.<<<
When I first read this misdirection (this “sleight of hand”,) I had a nagging feeling that I had been warned of such deviousness years ago.
Then it dawned on me: a fellow named Philip Freneau wrote an editorial in 1792 that warned of such misdirection. He labeled it, “Crying ‘Stop Thief,’ first,” assumedly so the crowd will not realize that you are, in fact, the thief. Your comment (above) is a classic example of such misdirection.
Anyway, Philip Freneau was the editor of the National Gazette, a newspaper owned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This is a link to the editorial, titled “Rules for Changing a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy;” and it is a true classic: instructing us on how tyrants are able to usurp powers and create unconstitutional law:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/freneau/republic2monarchy.htm
I first read that editorial in the mid-1970s. It was included with my new Encyclopedia Britannica’s in a companion set of books titled “Annals of America.” The editorial was so breathtakingly revealing that I later adopted my Freeper name from the author.
Philip
It all happened in 70 AD, the Second Coming happened already, the resurrection is past history ... and we are currently in Revelation 20 ...
but you're not a preterist ...
Are you in one of those King James Only cults?
>>>Heb 8:8-9 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.<<<
I am unsure what you are implying. The first blood covenant (the old testament) was confirmed in the wilderness. The second blood covenant (the new testament) was confirmed by the blood of Jesus Christ. Stephen explained the timing of the old covenant in Acts 3:
"So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph." (Acts 7:15-18 KJV)
The promise was still "future," even after the days of Jacob. Recall that this was the part of the covenant God made with Abraham regarding the land:
"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Gen 15:18-21 KJV)
This was God's confirmation of the covenant to the children of Israel when they were in bondage in Egypt:
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord." (Exo 6:3-8 KJV)
The following was God's confirmation of the covenant when they were in the wilderness. Note that with the covenant came both blessings and a warning:
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." (Exo 19:5-6 KJV)
The convenant was eventually written down and sanctified with blood:
"And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exo 24:6-8 KJV)
But Israel broke the covenant before "the ink was dry." The Lord was angry, and threatened to destroy all of Israel, except Moses, and give the covenant to Moses and his seed:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?" (Exo 32:9-11 KJV)
But Moses interceded on behalf of Israel, and God relented. But the promise was still future tense:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way." (Exo 33:1-3 KJV)
The most important thing to understand in the land matter, in my opinion, is this:
"The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with me." (Lev 25:23 KJV)
The land never belonged to Israel, or anyone else. It always belonged to the Lord, and always will.
>>>Second, The first covenant and it’s accompanying law is a type of the second covenant and it’s accompanying law. The first time the law was written on the tables, the second time it was written on the hearts. Neither covenant made the promise of none effect. I believe the promise is twofold, first to the natural man, second to the spiritual man. <<<
I agree, but only in that order. Paul explained how the old was replaced by the new in Hebrews 8:13:
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Heb 8:13 KJV)
At the time Paul wrote the Hebrews, the old covenant temple, organization and rituals were still in place. They disappeared, along with the old covenant, in AD 70 upon the destruction of Jerusalem.
>>>Third, it is significant the word “seed” is singular in Galatians 3:16. Wouldn’t it also be significant in verse 29?<<<
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you implying there might be only a single believer in Christ, or even none? All things are possible, but some things are not likely. LOL!
A casual reading of God's original promise to Abram does not reveal, one way or the other, whether it be singular or plural. It is only in later prophecy that the singular nature of the word "seed," as an individual inheritor, is revealed:
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (Isa 42:1 KJV)
"I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there." (Isa 65:9 KJV)
Note that in both verses Isaiah implies that only a single seed is the inheritor. But then there is this:
"They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands." (Isa 65:22 KJV)
Since we know the Lord does not contradict himself, there must be an explanation. And there is. We see the same "sequence," if you will, in Galatians: first, a single-seed inheritor, then multiple inheritors. In Galatians 3:16-29, Christ is the inheritor, and then he distributes his inheritance to his children:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29 KJV)
Anyway, that is the way I see it.
Philip
No. I believe there was a partial fulfillment around AD 70, including the first resurrection for the elect. At least, I think that is when the scriptures said it occurred. I believe our resurrection will occur after Satan is defeated in the future, hopefully soon.
For the record, how do you interpret the terms "this generation," or similar phrases, in the following verses? Actually, my question is, are any of these to be interpreted as a generation other than the generation of Jesus Christ and his disciples?
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Mt 1:1 KJV)
"But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation." (Lk 17:25 KJV)
"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mk 8:12 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mt 24:34 KJV)
"Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mk 8:38 KJV)
I personally believe they all mean the generation of Christ; and there are these supporting statements by Jesus to his disciples that reinforce my belief:
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mt 10:23 KJV)
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:27-28 KJV)
Those passages are most convincing that Christ was to (first) return within his own generation to take control of his kingdom. And, of course, there are these statements that make it virtually impossible for the Great Whore, Babylon the Great, to be any other city than 1st century Jerusalem:
"That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." (Lk 11:50-51 KJV)
"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem." (Lk 13:33 KJV)
"Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her." (Rev 18:20 KJV)
"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev 18:24 KJV)
Daniel also wrote of a partial resurrection; and his words indicate it was only for his people, Israel. Note in the following passage the use of the term "thy people," and the term "many of them:"
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
I believe the second resurrection--our resurrection--will occur in the future, exactly as written, when that deceitful Satan and his angels are defeated. It will occur in this manner:
". . . we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Rom 14:10-12 KJV)
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:11-15 KJV)
I am aware that the new-agers have tried to reinterpret "judgement according to works" into a bad thing. But don't believe them. Jesus and the apostles spoke of both good and bad works, and Jesus said that he would judge, both good and bad, according to works. In fact, one of the last things he said was this:
"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Rev 22:12 KJV)
Would Jesus use the word "reward," if his judgement was strictly for punishment?
>>>... and we are currently in Revelation 20 ...<<<
Correct. That is the traditional postmillennial position.
>>>but you're not a preterist ...<<<
I am a postmillennialist, according to Wikipedia. Did you not read the post where I explained how I fit that definition? You should. LOL!
For the record, I personally have no agenda, one way or the other; so I am not forced to mistranslate the Bible to make it fit an agenda.
>>>Are you in one of those King James Only cults?<<<
King James Only Cult? That is a new one. Is that the latest "Dispy Smear" phrase? LOL!
Are you asking if I use the same bible used by all the great protestant ministers for hundreds of years? Yes, mostly. I do occasionally use Young's Literal Translation, and, rarely, some of the others. But mostly the Authorized Version of 1611.
How about you? What translation do you use? Holman's, where they alter the translation of Genesis 15:18 to better fit the new-fangled doctrine of the Southern Baptists?
"On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “I give this land to your offspring, from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates River:" (Gen 15:18 HCSB)
Or, how about the New King James Version, where they completely mistranslate that verse so that, "surprisingly," it becomes a perfect fit for the new-age doctrine of the dispensational cult:
"On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates--" (Gen 15:18 NKJV)
Of course, most of the new-age translations make that error, in one manner or another, most likely because of those so-called "older" manuscripts they used. But none could get around the plain reading of Galatians 3:16, which the New King James translators were forced to write as follows:
"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ." (Gal 3:16 NKJV)
However, to the new-age cults, which are obsessed with the old testament (hint: not the one that Christ shed his blood for,) that verse in Galatians, and the related verses in that chapter, are treated as little more than an annoyance, like a gnat.
Philip
You can read all you want atwww.pre-trib.org
There is a huge array of articles from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers.
You can read all you want at
There is a huge array of articles from seminary professors, pastors, and teachers.
(Just a recommended resource.)
And a good one at that ...
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.