Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
“And if Luther and Calvin were correct in their “heresies” then who are you to decide if dispensationalism is some kind of damnable heresy?”
“Damnable heresy”? How did you interpret that from my statement “at the time, Darby was considered a heretic”?
And speaking of misinterpreting, to answer your question about dispensationalism, why do I believe it’s not biblical (my words) — I’m sure you’ve heard of the Bereans?
Well, my personal story is that, after a lot of prayer for clarity and by trying more to emulate the Bereans, my husband and I both left dispensationalism behind.
Acts 17:11: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
Your unbiblical literalism will get you every time.
A word was secretly brought to me,my ears caught a whisper of it. Amid disquieting dreams in the night,when deep sleep falls on men, fear and trembling seized me and made all my bones shake. A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: “Never eat hot dogs with sauerkraut and chili with beer before going to bed!! And, by the way, we left you a classic Broadway tune to help explain the problem.”
Altogether now, “You say tomato; I say tomatoe, you say potato; I say potatoe, tomato-tomatoe; poatato-potatoe, let’s call the whole thing off.”
Dispensation of innocence (Gen 1:1–3:7), prior to Adam’s fall,
The Adamic Covenant -——— Dispensation of conscience (Gen 3:8–8:22), Adam to Noah,
The Noahic Covenant -——— Dispensation of government (Gen 9:1–11:32), Noah to Abraham,
The Abrahamic Covenant -——— Dispensation of patriarchal rule (Gen 12:1–Exod 19:25), Abraham to Moses
The Sinaitic Covenant -——— Dispensation of the Mosaic Law (Exod 20:1–Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ,
The Davidic Covenant
The Messianic Covenant ——— Dispensation of grace (Acts 2:4–Rev 20:3), the current church age.
Wow!! There’s enough heresy here to go to war over.
That, my friend, is an absolutely telling, dividing-point, type question.
That question is a tipping point. Bullseye. Thanks.
You could have saved yourself some trouble and just pointed to the correct page in Scofield's Notes.
I assume this means you "literalists" are all disavowing the decidedly non-literal interpretation of your fellow dispensationalist Chuck Missler quoted here.
Or is it just another example of your "literal-when-convenient" method?
Well they were partially right, right??? Because the Jewish people have already returned to the land of Israel -- "before" [not "after"] turning to Jesus as their Messiah, right???
And why would they return to the land of Israel at all??? Ahhh -- it was and is the Land of the Abrahamic Promise.
“You could have saved yourself some trouble and just pointed to the correct page in Scofield’s Notes.”
Was that the funny looking guy with the beard who spoke to me in the dream? Actually, the stuff came from Wikipedia. I don’t own a Scofield; I use an old Dickson Study Bible that is falling apart.
If you left it behind, you wouldn't keep coming back to this thread. You left it. But you didn't leave it behind. It's still with you.
Oh, no! Their trotting out their "symoblic" peashooter again.
So, let's see, the bread and cup are symbols of the body & blood, and overall of the sacrifice on the altar.
Let's see if we can decipher the 666Nero of John relating to Paul's "man of sin sitting in the temple."
It means _________ that all Christians need to know.
a. Caesar likes pizza and Christians should fellowship over a good Italian buffet.
b. Caesar has long-distance agents who push around Jews about their temple worship, and therefore, Christians should get really mad at both Romans and Jews. The lesson: pride should really hack you off!
c. Caesar longed to sit in the Jerusalem Temple but didn't like boat travel cause it made him seasick, and he didn't like overland cause it was just too much camping outside, so if he coulda done it, he woulda done it, and that means that he would've personally bonked the Jews if he could've, but it did give rise to travel agents.
d. Caesar didn't sit in the Temple, so he isn't the man of sin about whom Paul wrote.
They’re — symbolic.....
Sigh....
Which ultimately came from Scofield’s Notes.
Unfortunately, it's still with all of us.
Most people choose what annoys them.
This is not what those churchmen had in view since the restorations of Israel found in the Bible are all following repentance and a renewal of the covenant in faith.
A secular/political decree in 1948 does not match the criteria that true biblical scholars are interested in.
And why would they return to the land of Israel at all??? Ahhh -- it was and is the Land of the Abrahamic Promise.
Abraham was promised the entire world (Roman 4:13). I’m not saying I accept the interpretation of these churchmen, I was merely pointing out that a restoration view was not limited to dispensationalism, or holding such a view makes one a dispensationalist. Be reminded that the Puritan view does not share the radical features of dispensationalism, e.g., restoration of Israel while yet in unbelief with no end in sight.
True, and yet we still hang around on the Religion section of FR.
“Which ultimately came from Scofield’s Notes.”
Which ultimately came about 150 years after the Covenant stuff. Kind of like finding the Dead Sea Scrolls that authenticated and explained some of the Old Testament or moving on from milk to strong meat.
That Word also teaches that the world will wax worse and worse and lawlessness will increase until the Great Tribulation . . . etc.
To believe both, you must conclude that either A) Transformed lives don't accomplish jack squat when working in groups, meaning groups can't be transformed B) God doesn't plan on transforming lives in the future, or b) The "transformed life" is but a temporary phenomena.
or C) God meant what He said in II Timothy 3 --
I'll take C)
What I’m presently researching, (without much luck) is what actually happened in Jerusalem during the period of time from immediately after the crucifixion to that period of time (the weeks) after the descent of the Holy Spirit. An author whose reference I’ve lost, (I believe it’s Neuhaus?), has written a new book wherein he professes a theory to the effect that a very large percentage of the Jewish population, perhaps as much as 50%, converted to Christianity and that the resultant, violent, reaction of the Temple hiearchy, (Priests, Pharisees, et al) led to a diaspora of sorts out of Jerusalem, (Christians forced to flee), and massive riots and violence which ultimately led to the Roman crackdown and the sacking of the Temple. What seems to be peculiarly buried is an accurate Roman historical account. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that the events following the Crucifixion were tumultuous, near cataclysmic, and yet, I’m also convinced that the “Authorities”, Roman and Hebrew worked very hard to downplay the events and to censure publication of information surrounding those events.
I ramble, off point as usual. sorry.
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.