Posted on 10/15/2011 9:30:31 AM PDT by marbren
Luke 15:11-32
(KJV)
11And he said, A certain man had two sons:
12And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
13And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
17And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
i pinged you because i know you have an interest in “dispys”. the thread probably won’t go much further as mr smvoice promised proof of his assertions, but none were forthcoming and i think he left the thread.
btw - i agree, i believe these are years as well.
Yes we do. We know that the dispensation of the law changed into the dispensation of grace don’t we. The dispensation of the law dealt exclusively with Israel while the dispensation of grace deals with all people on earth. When the fullness of the Gentiles comes in the dispensation of grace will end and there will again be a dispensation that deals specifically with Israel.
bingo, “the 70 weeks REPRESENT.......”
REPRESENT = types and shadows. not a literal 70 week period.
thank you for making my point perfectly.
“and there will be a dispensation that deals specifically with Israel”
care to provide Scripture to back this up?
Sure.
'For behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, 'that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,' says the Lord. 'And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.'…..'Therefore do not fear, O My servant Jacob,' says the Lord, 'Nor be dismayed, O Israel; For behold, I will save you from afar, And your seed from the land of their captivity. Jacob shall return, have rest and be quiet, And no one shall make him afraid. 11. For I am with you,' says the Lord, 'to save you; Though I make a full end of all nations where I have scattered you, Yet I will not make a complete end of you. But I will correct you in justice, And will not let you go altogether unpunished.' Jeremiah 30:4,10-11
“After many days you will be visited. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate; they were brought out of the nations, and now all of them dwell safely. Ezekiel 38:8
God is once again dealing with the nation of Israel and it starts with the signing of the treaty by the Anti Christ. Notice the “full end” of all the nations but not of Israel.
But scripture also tells us what they mean and it’s not something we just arbitrarily assign meaning to.
these passages are not talking about corporate Israel, they are referring to the elect, the Body of Christ.
who dwells safely? those in Christ!!!
Oh good grief.
“that the Lord your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the Lord your God has scattered you.”<<
That’s talking about the body of Christ? Are you kidding?
“Then the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it”
What land did the “church” possess and why will God have to bring them back?
You’re so far off it’s almost a waste of time discussing this with you.
I do not believe in replacement theology.
Strange, because Dispensationalism embraces 'replacing' Jesus Christ and the Church with 1948 secular nation Israel. Dispies also "replace" Israel with themselves in passages like Jeremiah 29:11 when the passage is clearly about the captive Jews (see v 4). Or when they try to prove "Free Will" in passages like Joshua 24:15 by replacing Israel with themselves. The list is boundless of examples where modern Evangelical Dispensationalists routinely replace the proper focus of the passages with entirely inappropriate characters - most egregious is in Daniel 9:26-27 where our LORD is gratuitously replaced by the Dispensationalists with a purely invented "antichrist" character. So you folks own "replacement theology".
As for us commonly insulted 'Realized Millennialists', the Gentiles don't "replace" "those of like faith of Abraham" (Gal 3:7-9) rather, "expand" it. Remember, in Hebrews 11, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Issac and Jacob were not Jews under the Law of Moses yet are of the Church bound with thousands of years of Believers in faith. Dispies can't explain that in their artificial bifurcation of the Church.
Getting to the subject matter of your speculation, you are hurling elephants with the forced interpretations that try to make the round peg of Dispensationalism fit in the square hole of Grace/Faith. Approaching something a priori is not a good hermeneutic - its technically propaganda.
First off, the parable is only told in Luke - a Gentile gospel. Usually when one runs into things that should interest most the Jews, it would be in Matthew.
You are also deliberately ignoring the context of the occasion where our LORD presents this Parable. in the first verse of chapter 15 we see that the Scribes and the Pharisees were bitter about our LORD "receiving sinners". It would be inappropriate and wildly out of context for Jesus to then get into a discussion of dividing the people of faith between Jews and Gentiles particularly since our LORD did not minister to Gentiles (Matt 10:5-6; 15:24) and His present company was exclusively Jews.
Our LORD justifies His ministry to "the sinners" using the parable of the lost sheep, then the lost coin to lead up to His condemnation of the Pharisees and Scribes in their contempt of our LORD "seeking the lost".
I think it is painfully obvious who the younger brother and the elder are. The elder is the one who "kept the Law", thought he lived a perfect life and was pleasing to his father - this clearly is the sentiment that the Pharisees and Scribes "knew" they had with God in their mastery and keeping of the Law (in their terms). Being that in this context there are three actors, the father and the two sons, we can easily surmise who the Father is which leaves by default the "tax collectors and sinners" which is depicted as the younger.
On completion of that segue Parable, our LORD now strikes to the heart of the problem of the Pharisees in the Parable of the Unjust Steward. They clearly saw themselves there (16:14) and were now insulting Jesus because he revealed the bitter sinners that they are.
Taking the entire scene as a whole, it is a brilliant reprimand and condemnation of men who thought that they were better than the "tax collectors and sinners". He takes their own objections to who they are, and turns their accusations against their own hypocrisy revealing who was most in need of the Savior.
This is a common problem with Dispies. Isolating select passages of Scripture from the greater context and then applying an interpretational template that in effect creates a circular argument. I suppose there might be some vain satisfaction in trying to defend the undefendable, but in the process you miss the Glory of God.
Commentaries can be your friend. Christianity has been around for millennia and the Prodigal Son is one of the most commented parables. Do you really think that after all these centuries you would be the only one who has the Truth?
Guard rails, friend.
These attempts to interject unsubstantiated dispensation theories into the Christian message serves only to diminish the work of Christ,and rivals any known historical heresy.
Don't forget most Jews today are cultural agnostic types while Israel is a state founded by atheistic socialists who had no interest in God.The Jew of the bible and the one of today are distinct entities.
our father Adam possessed paradise before he sinned.
all humans ( except Jesus ) were subject to this sin and therefore were in captivity of sin and death.
Jesus came to set the captives free.
why do you think this refers to Jews coming back to Israel? what difference does it make if a Jew is living in New York, Jerusalem or Paris? where are Jews in “captivity” today?
the Bible is a spiritual book concerned with telling the story of the love God has for His chosen people, and His sending His Son into the world to save these people from their sins. i suggest you are making the same mistake the Jews in Jesus’s day made, remember Jesus kingdom is not of this world.
You wish. You probably also think that when God said forever He didn’t really mean forever.
Israel has its own future day of glory apart from the Gentile Bride.
I take it that you reject Galatians 3:21-29 (particualrly "there is neither Jew nor Greek"). Notice how Paul keeps using the word "we" when spanning the ages from Creation to the present in terms of Faith and how salvation is obtained.
If there are two paths, one for Jews, another for Gentiles, then why did our LORD and the Apostles minister exclusively to the Jews for the first seven years?
You create a real problem here. Since Dispensationalists fancy Israel as the wife of God and the Church as the bride of Christ, don't we have a blatant Lev 20:14 sin on the occasion that an ethnic "DNA certified" Jew takes on the name of Christ? How did that passage in Amos 2;7 go?
"...a man and his father go in the same girl, to defile my holy name..."
Jesus is taking on His father's wife?
You need to rethink that heresy before claiming it as your faith.
I noticed you just signed up today. Welcome. I also noticed you make derogatory remarks trying to equate me to LDS. Then I also sensed your religion is the one who thinks men will become Gods like the LDS do. Go figure.
I certainly agree with what you've written here, but I'm not entirely certain you do. I thought you guys started believing that Mary was sinless back in the 19th century.
being subject to sin and being “full of grace” are two seperate issues. you do believe Mary was full of grace don’t you?
Was Mary subject to sin and death in your belief or was she not, oLofob?
IMHO
"H" as in "Humble"? I didn't see a </sarc tag.
Because what you are saying is that from Paul to Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Spurgeon, Hodge, Barnes, Henry, Clarke, Whitefield, Newton, Owens, Edwards and everyone else in between are heretics, skeptics and dead wrong about their consistent theology.
Some would reasonably see that as profound arrogance. You are categorically calling ALL theologians, from which our foundations of all doctrines have been vetted, explored and taught are wrong, and hundreds of millions of Believers have been let down by the Paraclete and have been in a two thousand year long stretch of Spiritual Darkness - until you came along bearing all Truth. (FWIW, this is exactly how Cults are formed)
For some odd reason 2 Thess 2:3 comes to mind. I don't really know why. Are we approaching the "that Day"?
I would love to see your first Systematic Theology
Mary found favor with God and was kept free from sin, not by her own merits or holiness, but due to the grace of her Son. being full of grace does not allow for sin to exist. Mary died just like any other human being. She was certainly blessed by God, wasn’t she?
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.