Posted on 08/29/2009 8:14:40 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
“...I’m not so consumed by hatred for the Church founded by Christ...”
If you don’t hate the Body of Christ then why do you deny that it is the Church created by Christ and instead go on and on about the non-Christian RCO?
“I worship in the Church founded by Christ: the Catholic Church.”
The Church founded by Christ is the Body of Christ. The RCO isn’t even Christian.
The Roman Catholic Organization. They claim that they are the “one” “true” “church” but they never get around to saying if the Western or the Eastern branch is the actual “true” “church”.
You have once again given me a search page. Why not just come out and tell me what you mean.
***I pray that the RCO will someday renounce their heresies but it looks like they will be a huge part of the end times prophecies.***
Whoever the RCO is should renounce their heresies. We are in accord.
***RCC = Roman Catholic Church. That was thrown in because the document I was quoting used that term. RCO is a better term as it fully describes and highlights the idolatry.***
Why not call it the Catholic Church? How does RCO fully describe and highlight idolatry? It is an acronym that means nothing.
***You still never told me which “Catholic” church is the “true” and “only” one. Is it the Western one or the Eastern one? It can’t be both.***
That’s because you never asked me. The Catholic Church has the Eastern and Western wings, as delineated by the Latin and the Orthodox churches - led by the five bishops of the early Church. The Church is one; the liturgy is one. The only difference is regional or, basically, the drapes and furniture.
You can still feel free to demonstrate where Christ speaks of His Second Coming in terms of happening "shortly", etc.
But I do not want to get too far afield from the original issue, i.e., that modern Israel is claimed by some to be the fulfillment of specific Bible prophecy.
Can you demonstrate that in your own words? While I appreciate articles by others, they are not here to debate the issue or defend their words. It is often possible to drive a truck through the hole in their position, as I did in the case of the “fig tree” article you mentioned.
But you are, and so I would like to hear your interpretative analysis of the Bible on this subject.
Yes, the Catholic Church!
The RCO isn’t even Christian.
I don't care. I have nothing to do with it.
Don't try to stuff your filthy lies in my mouth. The Body of Christ is the Church created by Christ: the Catholic Church.
...and instead go on and on about the non-Christian RCO?
I haven't, I don't. I have told you about a dozen times now, I have nothing to do with the RCO. I am Catholic.
The key is to read Revelation as it was intended, i.e., as a series of symbols taken largely from the OT to explain to the early Church the things that were about to happen to the unbelieving Jews in and around Jerusalem.
We see this in the opening verses.
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants-- things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.Things which must shortly come to pass that were “signified” (spoken symbolically or spiritually) to John as a messenger to the early Church.
The images are best understood that way, by carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture (did you do that carefully when you read the book?) esp. in light of the OT prophets.
Futurists are very good at forcing the images into some artificial mold to try and make them fit with modern events. In fact, futurists have been trying this without much success for almost 200 years. There are almost as many theories as to what the images mean as there are futurists.
Take the image of Rev. 9:16 for example.
Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them.Most futurists have claimed that this represents the armies of modern China, an army of two hundred million that are poised to invade the Middle East. There is one significant problem with that view, China does not have 200 million soldiers with 200 million horses. In fact there are only about 70 million horses in the entire world!! And many of those are not suitable for use in war.
But does that slight problem bother the average futurist? Not at all. They invented the interpretation, so they are free to go ahead and invent another. The Bible is not really important for them as a basis for such interpretation. Their motto, “if it is sounds good, use it.”
It’s hard to explain to someone how these symbols of Revelation could have had meaning to 1st century believers since they generally refused to consider anything that does not fit with their preconceptions about what ought to be.
I really wish somebody would do a line by line Scriptural analysis of the Book of Revelation using 70AD.
Obviously you are not very well read on the subject. Tell me, what have you read from a preterist perspective?
Not that different, since we both agree on the basic error of dispensationalism. And we both agree that the Second Coming is after the “1000 years” of Revelation 20. And we both agree that Christ is presently reigning over the nations from the throne of David in heaven. And we both agree that the Church is the new covenant expression of the people of God as Israel was in the old. And we both agree that the Church did not replace Israel, but rather is the promised blessing of Abraham to the nations and expansion of God’s kingdom until Christ returns in judgment. And we both agree that God intended for Jews and gentiles to live together under Christ’s kingship in this one new man, this one holy nation and royal priesthood.
***“But after we accept Him, then we must, as in Matthew 25, act as proper stewards of His Grace...”
How did you come to the idea that his Grace is a commodity that we are a steward of? We cannot give it away, we cannot even share it. The only way a friend of ours can have Grace is by doing what we did, accepting Christ.***
Did I say that we could give it away? The steward of the kingdom cannot give the kingdom away. We are charged by God to make the best use of His gifts, as illustrated by the parable of the talents. Otherwise we will be thrown into the outer darkness.
***“...just as Peter (and his successors)...”
Where is succession in Scripture?***
The choosing of Matthias is the first instance. The laying on of hands to choose the next office holders occurs throughout Acts and the Epistles.
***“...must act as proper stewards of His Church.”
Where is this in Scripture? Is all this inferred by the “keys” passage that seems to not even be referring to Peter at all?***
Interesting, since Jesus is talking specifically to Peter and not the other Apostles. Are you sure that you have read the passage correctly?
***“... the Beatitudes gives us good guidelines. We must give of ourselves without hesitation and become selfless to the point of humility before Him. Mother Teresa comes to mind.”
We can try. Christ calls us to do our best at them. But like the Law, the Beatitudes cannot be fully obeyed by fallen man. We come up way far short. As for acting selfless, even at Teresa’s very best moment on her very best day.. her works were as filthy rags to God.***
After she has received God’s Grace, those works are what she will be Judged on. Otherwise, how do you explain the Beatitudes?
***“Accepting His Grace is not enough.”
We must add filthy rags to Christ’s completed Work in order for it to count for us?***
How else do you explain the Beatitudes, and indeed, the whole of the Gospels? Jesus instructs us on what to do and why. How else do you explain Matthew 25:
31
14 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne,
32
and all the nations 15 will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
40
And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
44
18 Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’
45
He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Jesus does not say that one may sit on one’s backside and find salvation. He says that these will go off to eternal punishment.
***“I believe that for every man, the works are different. A soup kitchen, a charity, a Boy Scout troop, raising a good Christian family, donating to African welfare, cleaning up the river in the community, joining the Guardian Angels might be some of them.”
So working in a soup kitchen and enabling people to remain trapped in their poverty instead of cleaning themselves up and getting a job is required to partake in Christ’s sacrifice? Giving to a charity that takes your money and uses it to promote lobbying for liberal causes in government is required? Teaching young boys to tie knots and start campfires is required? Raising a family is a work and not a blessing? Raising them Christian is an option and not expected? Giving money to a ironfisted dictator of an African country is required? Cleaning a river? So if that person doesn’t clean a river they don’t get to partake in Christ’s Grace? How would they know they were the one that has to clean the river? Who would even care about a river? The Guardian Angels are a neighborhood watch group. So some people get to raise a family to go to God but other’s have to join the neighborhood watch? How is a man to know what God wants him to do? None of these works makes a person any better than any other person. Even if they have the best of intentions, it cannot be said that anything they have done is good.***
I have given some generic examples. I do not know what God has tasked any man to do. All I believe is that if one does not follow one’s tasks, then God will Judge us accordingly. If you object to serving your fellow man, then tell me; what is your purpose here on earth? Matthew 22:
34
19 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together,
35
and one of them [a scholar of the law] 20 tested him by asking,
36
“Teacher, 21 which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
37
He said to him, 22 “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
39
The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
I don’t see much of the second in your posts. I’m not even sure of how much of the first I see either. The hubris of personal interpretation gets in the way of serving God.
***“The Bible has sufficient guidelines and suggestions.”
Trying to live as Christ is what we are expected to do. It isn’t what we do to complete His perfect Work, because no matter how hard we try, no matter what we do, it will always be as filthy rags before God. God doesn’t want any man to be able to boast.***
Christ served his fellow man in all ways. Your diatribe belies that sentiment.
***“Whatever you do (or don’t do) to the least of my brothers...”
If you have the Holy Spirit indwelt in you, then you yearn for, burn for being able to be like Christ. We all want to. But we must be realistic. Our works are as filthy rags. Not one of them is any good at all. None of them can add to His perfect Work. If God required Christ’s Work *and* you cleaning a river, how could you ever get that river clean enough or perfect enough for it to be good? It will never be good. All of creation is fallen as well and there is nothing we can do about it.***
Are you arguing for creative inertia? Taken to its logical conclusion, this statement absolves anyone of everything. All you have to do is acquire a case of heartburn and everything’s fine, right?
***“I’m not sure what the Roman Catholic Organization is. Can you clarify?”
It is that group of people that tell everyone they are the ‘one true church’ even though they perform adultery with Babylon.***
You keep speaking circumspectly. Who are these people?
***“If you mean that Peter was given the keys, then you must look at the kingdoms of the time. Whenever the king went away for any length of time, he selected a steward to watch over the kingdom. The official protocol was that in a public ceremony of some kind, he would give the steward the keys to the castle, which signified that he was in charge of all (including the wine cellar and the women!!!) until the king returned.”
This is non-Scriptural conjecture. Too much is made by the RCO about this one verse that seems to not even be about Peter at all.***
It is not conjecture. Who are these RCO people?
***“After Jesus, Peter is by far the most mentioned name in Scripture.”
This means nothing.***
It did to Jesus. Are you saying that your opinion trumps Jesus?
***“Peter speaks for the Apostles, and when Jesus speaks to them, he normally spoke to Peter.”
Is there a website that lists all the times Christ spoke to the apostles and demonstrates that it was most always to Peter? I’d like to see it.***
Perhaps I could acquaint you with Sacred Scripture. It lists the times that Jesus spoke to the Apostles and most of the time it was to and through Peter.
***“Peter was commanded to feed His sheep...”
All of us must do this.***
I thought that you objected to this (above). The contempt for fellow man was most amazing for a self described Christian.
***“...and He was the first man to perform a miracle.”
After Christ did first right? Even so, what does it prove? He wasn’t even the only one to do it.
“He was the first to convert a Gentile...”
Still don’t see how this makes much of a case.
“...and he was the only man to ever walk on water.”
Aside from Christ though right? Still, he wasn’t brought back from the dead like Lazarus, so shouldn’t Lazarus be Pope instead?***
Interesting. Do you think of Jesus as a mere man? At any rate, Peter was the first among equals of the Apostles.
***“As the Father has sent me, so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
This goes for everyone that has the Holy Spirit.***
Nope. It is only for the clergy who have been instructed.
***“What is an RCO ritual?”
Things like praying to dead people, asking fallen humans to forgive you, kneeling/praying/lighting candles in front of a statue, infant baptism, eating wafers, succession, claiming infallibility, worshiping fallen angels, claiming that only certain sin filled fallen men can correctly interpret the Word as if they are angels come down from heaven with a new doctrine, etc.***
Sounds like quite a bunch. Who are they?
***“I count myself as a member of Christ’s Church.”
You seem to see it as an organization, as you feel that if one person whom you believe to be a fellow member was someplace in history, that you were there as well. Christ formed the Body of Christ, not an organization. The Body of Christ is made up of all Christians. And just because a fellow Christian goes to a NASCAR race, it doesn’t mean that you were there too.***
So that is why I am having trouble understanding you. All this time I thought that it was about Jesus and His death, resurrection and ascension into heaven. I didn’t realize that Christian doctrine consists of NASCAR races. Thank you for the enlightenment.
***“The doctrine of the Trinity is not plain.”
It was to me. I knew right away that Christ was God and yet Man at the same time. I understood the three Persons in One.***
Right away? What do you mean right away? And most people who have entire lifetimes of pious Christianity cannot fully grasp it.
***Just because some other fallen humans didn’t understand it right away doesn’t mean anything. For millennia the Bible couldn’t even be read by most people, so they could only go by what someone else said about it. If everyone was allowed to read it and had the ability to do so right from the start, then I bet it wouldn’t have taken very long for this to be obvious to all. ***
Umm, until the 1800s, less than 10% of the people could read. In the Middle East in the time of Jesus, it was about 1%. Who was going to read it? And what was going to be read? There were 60 Gospels that we have fragments of and another 20 that we have references to. Where is your Shepherd of Hermas? Where is the Apocalypse of Peter? Where is your Acts of Paul?
***“The Beatitudes are an excellent starting point. Each man is called to do something specific to him - the parable of the talents is an illustration.”
How is this man to know what he must do? Who tells him? What if he fails? Does his acceptance of Christ then mean nothing? How does he know it is only one specific thing? What if it is 3 or 8? How would he know? Why would God ask him to do works that are as filthy rags to Him in addition to His Son’s perfect Work? What works did the thief on the cross next to Christ do?***
Take it up with Jesus. Either His Gospels are correct or else they are incorrect. I do not know what each man is called upon to do. The Holy Spirit guides. If people would listen to that quiet voice, then they would have at least a clue.
***“True Christianity comes from the words of Jesus, the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church, rather than the vain and hubristic mutterings of men like Luther (good living), Calvin (power) or Zwingli (mysticism).”
I have never read any of their works. But you can also include all the Popes in there too as they are only vain and hubristic men as well. Who are the Doctors of the Church?***
I suspected as much. I would encourage you to do some research into the early Church in order to find out what Christianity really is. I don’t think that you have a good concept of Christianity as it was and is. May I ask if you are Pentacostal?
***“Since Jesus created it, I think that He views it in the same light.”
But Christ created the Body of Christ, made up of all Christians. He didn’t make the RCO, it’s not even Christian.***
What is the RCO? The Body of Christ is made up of all Christians, certainly. But those who do not understand the Gospel of Christ are obviously not Christian. Whether they do not, will not, or cannot, they are not Christian.
***“Good for whoever these RCO members are.”
Did you check any of the links I gave you about them yet?***
You posted two links to the Catechism stating that this is what the RCO believes. And good for them. And two search pages on Google. But you still not explained who the RCO is.
***“It all depends on your perspective. If you value Jesus more than the letters of men, then the Gospels come first and you may call yourself Christian. If you value the letters of men, then you are not really Christian, are you?”
So the letters of the Bible are enough to justify the forming of the RCO but not enough to be Christian? Or are you saying that only the parts of the Bible where Christ is speaking are the Holy parts and the rest is junk? Why are the rest in there then? Did God mess up when he caused the Bible to come out in the form it is in?***
What is the RCO? Did I say that any of the Bible is junk? I think that anyone who considers the words of Jesus to be of no more importance than those of Shemiah is not Christian.
***“Then we must have a discussion about what God-inspired means.”
Everything in the Bible is God inspired as it is His Word, His Breath.***
If you claim that God dictated the Bible, then the Bible itself calls you wrong. Luke and Revelation are most explicit. The letters from the bishops to their flocks are also not God-breathed. They are letters from men to men.
***“Do you think that the words of Jesus Christ are no more valuable than, for instance, Shemiah? God has inspired the Bible; yet the words of Jesus are infinitely more valuable than those of Jephthah.”
They are all important because they are all God’s Word, His Breath. To pick and choose what you like and toss what you don’t will lead away from Christ and into the bondage of Babylon Mystery practices.***
But you have already demonstrated that you pick and choose. For instance, you have dismissed Matthew completely.
***This is why the RCO is where it is. They only read the parts of the Word they agree with.***
Who is the RCO and where are they?
***“How do you know?”
I believe in my heart and confess with my mouth Christ.***
Then you do not know.
***“What is the RCO?”
Again? I’ve answered this already a number of times.***
You have not other than call it the Roman Catholic Organization. I have asked you repeatedly to tell me what that is.
***“Before the Reformation, there was no need of other descriptors. After the Reformation, the hubris of individual men led them to hideous beliefs such as sola scriptura and double predestination.”
I know nothing of the Reformation.***
Your posts exemplify their developments.
***All I know is the Bible.***
With respect, I would say not. Your dismissal of Matthew is most telling.
***There is a ton of hubris and hideous beliefs in the RCO too.***
Sounds like a nasty bunch. Who are they?
***“A man may be a Catholic or else not.”
Like this idolatry for the RCO.***
What does this mean?
***“I don’t want to invoke Petronski’s No Gibberish Rule.”
Of course. Doing that would mean that you have conceded the argument.***
There really isn’t much of one.
***“What in the world are you talking about?”
Members of the RCO love the organization above Christ.***
Sounds like a nasty bunch. Who is the RCO?
***The Roman Catholic Organization. They claim that they are the “one” “true” “church” but they never get around to saying if the Western or the Eastern branch is the actual “true” “church”.***
I couldn’t say until you tell me who the Roman Catholic Organization is.
What an amazingly cold view of Christian charity. Here's a bit of contrast:
Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.Matthew 25:34-42For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in:
Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.
Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry and fed thee: thirsty and gave thee drink?
Or when did we see thee a stranger and took thee in? Or naked and covered thee?
Or when did we see thee sick or in prison and came to thee?
And the king answering shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink...
Oh come on Petronski.
Here we have a fine example of a Christian whose self appointed duty is to sneer at those lesser beings who litter the laneways of life. How dare you interrupt the flow of pearls dripping from the mouth of God’s spokesman?
The poor are poor because they are lazy, shiftless bums who deserve it. God rewards all those who are destined for salvation with wealth and plenty. Doncha know? I think that all these fine outstanding Christians ought to band together and construct Soylent Green facilities to take care of all the riffraff.
/s
That is all explained in that link I sent you.
Who is Don Koenig and why should I read him instead of the folks that I read?
This site takes all that into account and explains it. There are flash forwards and meanwhiles, just like in any other narrative story.
Which is, to my point of view, the gymnastics he has to go through to make it work. He's a dispensationalist, and thus by definition sees no continuity between Israel and the church. Thus:
We have already defined that the woman is Israel. If there is still any doubt about who the woman is this verse tells us she flees into the wilderness for 1,260 days which is the same length of time the Beast Antichrist will have power on earth. .... --Don Koenig
The woman can't (for him, being a dispensationalist) have anything to do with the church, so he has to do interpretive gymnastics to make it all (sort of) work.
BTW, Dr. Vern Poythress put his The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation on his website, for free, here. For his discussion of the woman and the dragon, see here:
A woman appears arrayed in cosmic light. The imagery calls to mind Joseph’s dream (Gen. 37:9-10) and the picture of Jerusalem bringing forth the Messiah and his remnant (Mic. 5:3; Isa. 54:1-4; 66:7-13). The Old Testament saints collectively are in view. Mary the mother of Jesus is included in this group, but only as an outstanding member of the whole. The later history shows that the New Testament saints also are included (12:13-17) --Vern Poythress
I don't really want to get bogged down in details of the interpretation of this vision, just offer this comparison between schools.
Occam's Razor. Get the other stuff right, and the eschatology will follow.
covenant theology is often referred to as "supersessionism," or "replacement theology" by its detractors, due to the perception that it teaches that God has abandoned the promises made to the Jews and has replaced the Jews with Christians as his chosen people in the earth. Covenant theologians deny that God has abandoned his promises to Israel, but see the fulfillment of the promises to Israel in the person and the work of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, who established the church in organic continuity with Israel, not a separate replacement entity.
So why did you draw a line between yourself and Topcat?
Only a mild one, comparatively.
“As far as anathemas go, I’d prefer to leave the limits where the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds do.”What do you mean?
Capiche the ancient ecumenical creeds?
Two boundaries, at least, beyond which you cannot go are belief in the future return of Christ, and the resurrection of the body. Deny those (as full preterists do) and you aren't an orthodox Christian.
You are pretty quick to declare victory without winning. That smacks of desperation.
That sounds like the rhetorical games certain others play.
Topcat and I have different perspectives, and would have different recommended reading lists.Not that different, since we both agree on the basic error of dispensationalism. And we both agree that the Second Coming is after the “1000 years” of Revelation 20. And we both agree that Christ is presently reigning over the nations from the throne of David in heaven. And we both agree that the Church is the new covenant expression of the people of God as Israel was in the old. And we both agree that the Church did not replace Israel, but rather is the promised blessing of Abraham to the nations and expansion of God’s kingdom until Christ returns in judgment. And we both agree that God intended for Jews and gentiles to live together under Christ’s kingship in this one new man, this one holy nation and royal priesthood.
What he said.
The most significant difference is in the timing of the "thousand years" of Rev. 20. Is it a figure for the present situation of the church, or a future golden age before the return of Christ?
The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views might be helpful to get hold of and read.
Since it was not an argument per se, there is no logical flaw. I was simply stating a fact.
If you are talking about present day, please list the branches that deny this and links to where they deny it at. Please highlight the extra conservative Bible-based ones in the list so that can be confirmed as well.
The Reformed and Presbyterian branches of the Christians Church do. All of the churches in (very conservative/Bible-based) NAPARC are opposed to dispensationalism. I believe all of them will not allow their officers to hold or teach it.
In 1944, the (then conservative) Presbyterian Church in the US adopted a study that concluded:
It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism as defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily or simply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the very heart of the Theology of our Church, which is unquestionably a Theology of one Covenant of Grace. As Dr. Chafer clearly recognizes, there are two schools of interpretation represented here, which he rightly designates as “Covenantism” as over against “Dispensationalism.” ( Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 100, No. 399, p. 338.)The PCUS was the forerunner of the Presbyterian Church in America, one of the largest conservative Reformed denominations in North America.In fact, the divergence of Dispensationalism from the Covenant Theology of our Church is so obvious to Dr. Chafer that he suggests a revision of the Standards of the Church so as to make room for those who no longer hold to the Reformed tradition of a Covenant Theology. (ibid., p. 345.)
Lutherans, including the conservative LCMS, are opposed to these teachings.
Methodists oppose it, since they officially endorse the doctrine that Christ will return in the judgment of the last day. “Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.” (The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church)
Of course the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox denominations are opposed to its teachings.
Dispensationalism has been embraced by the Plymouth Brethren (the denomination of its creator, JN Darby), Assemblies of God, and perhaps other Pentecostal/charismatic groups, and many independent/fundamentalists local churches. Perhaps a few Anabaptist churches. In fact, other than the PB and AGs, I’m not aware of any noteworthy denomination with a statement of faith that affirms popular dispensationalism.
No. Today it is good for a laugh.
Do you still keep in touch? If so maybe you can ask him about the witnesses.
Here’s an interesting exercise, rather than involve my friend whom I have not see for 30 years, why don’t you explain what the witnesses are using just the Bible.
Then I will do the same.
I’m not aware of any noteworthy denomination with a statement of faith that affirms popular dispensationalism.
The EFCA in it's recently revised statement of faith, moved (slightly) from standard dispy-ism to a more generic pre-mil-ism. The old SoF had some language that excluded hyper-dispensationalism.
The rhetoric follows the usual path, by and large.
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.