Premillennialism, as well as a belief in a literal Millennial Kingdom (which they did have) lends itself to dispensationalism. You can't have it any other way.
Brother, this is absurd. Historic premillinnialism is HEAVILY covenantal.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Premillennialism, as well as a belief in a literal Millennial Kingdom (which they did have) lends itself to dispensationalism. You can't have it any other way.
The writings of Paul led me out of not only dispensationalism, but mormonism and charismania.I can testify that since I have claimed the promises that dispensational Scofield and Clarence Larkin says I have no right to claim since they are for the Jew my life has been more blessed than when I lived under the deception that I have no right to them.
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 are Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and HEIRS according to the promise.{Gal 3:28-29}KJB
Dispensationalism says there is a difference and there is a different plan for Jews in the coming tribulation while the church is gone to heaven.No God`s word says different.
In Jesus love.
Steven.
Of course it is and it was agreed upon by a convention of churches that are primarily DISPENSATIONALISTS! Good grief, how often does one have to be told before they actaully listen to what others actaully believe and not what that one continues to make up about it in their own mind.
Brother, this is absurd. Historic premillinnialism is HEAVILY covenantal.
Statement by OldRegular
Furthermore, it is totally contrary to the dispensational view of the church.
Response by Allan
For a person who read as much as you it is amazing that you still don't get it. That is EXACTLY the dispensationists view. They are not 'forever' seperated but in fact all will eventually be One Church body, just not yet.
Posted by OldRegular
I simply quote John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary.
Frankly I think Walvoord is confused but I could say that about dispensationalism in general.Response by Allan
Yes, you quote him with seemingly little to no comprehension of what he is actually saying. Again it isn't that they never to be seen as one body in which all the saints of God are united together as one, just not yet. Walvoord states specifically in your quoted portion that he is speaking of 'during the tribulation' and not after the mil-reign.
Winman;1428815answering ituttut said:Ituttut: "I believe what makes this so difficult to believe (God telling Paul a secret), is not many will accept, and understand what God Hid. They don't want to believe the revelations that Paul puts before us, for Jesus Christ on earth didn't tell anyone about The Gentile being justified through faith, and the Jew could now come just as the Gentile. No where in Prophecy are we told it is Now the Jew can be saved just as a Gentile; And it is the Gentile, in this dispensation that will Spread the Gospel of The Grace Of God thoughout the Whole World.
May I insert just one other verse, it being a continuation to verse 18 above. Matthew 16:19, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This man has the keys to the "kingdom of heaven".Winman;1428815answering ituttut said:Winman: Look up the word church in a concordance. You will see the first two mentions are by Jesus himself.
Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Jesus was addressing Jews in both these cases.
Winman, I sure can't disagree with scripture you present. We can see here, with scripture of Matthew verse 19 above I added, during those days of the Pentecostal church, Peter really did have the keys to the kingdom. Let's also remember that he that holds the Keys to the Kingdom, had a gospel to preach that we find just ahead of your Acts 2:47, that being Acts:38. I wish you had included verses 37 through 47 to see what those of this Gospel, after becoming part of the church did. What transpired with that church could very well be how "socialism" began, i.e. strip everyone of what they have, making all things common.And in Acts;
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Again, these were Jews only.
Yes, I agree it is by faith, but not of faith only Without the hands of man. Were these not "water baptized", and did they not make blood sacrifice? No. This is not the gospel that Christ Jesus from heaven gave to Paul.Did Jesus mention Jews being saved by faith only? Let's see.
Luke 5:20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man,thy sins are forgiven thee.
Above will cover, with further observation here.Luke 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. 49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
Show me one from the very beginning that Blood was not shed for. God did the first sacrifice of an animal for Adam and his wife. But after that we see all, beginning with Cain, and Abel, were to do the work of Blood Sacrifice, and nothing else but a Blood sacrifice be acceptable to God.Again, all these verses are spoken to Jews. So not only did Jesus speak of the church, he also showed that a Jew could be saved by faith alone.
Good try, but no brass ring on this one, as with other attempts to prove Paul wrong.ituttut;1429003answering Winman said:Winman:
And did Jesus mention the Gentiles before Acts? Let's see.
Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
Jesus said there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth when these Jews found themselves thrust out of the kingdom of God, and then tells them that Gentiles from the east, west, north, and south will sit down in the kingdom of God.
Many dispensationalists today are not old enough to remember that, nor have they studied historical dispensationalism enough to know those facts.Parenthetical theology is no theology. They started with the gap theory and continued with gaps throughout scripture.
Then they divided the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, plus a spurious, mystical secret rapture. Then, they had the nerve to criticize the 7th Day adventists because they made an adjustment when Jesus failed to return at the turn of the last century.
I believe God is the only one who can forgive sins, in any dispensation, and when He does, it is He that determines What Gospel He will save the sinner by. It is He that will dispense His Gospel of Grace When He will. He will justify man as He sees fit in His dispensations, and in Every one of his dispensations only one (1) thing is required of man. Man is to believe what God tells him, as he lives.
Those who believe we under the dispensation of grace need to be reminded that grace is a big thread that runs throughout all of scripture which includes both the OT and NT.
I wonder which dispensation the intertestamental period represents?
Many dispensationalists today are not old enough to remember that, nor have they studied historical dispensationalism enough to know those facts.
The only thing that happened on the Damascus Road was that Saul who says he was a persecutor of the Church was saved.Originally Posted by ituttut
I just cannot understand why people will not accept what happened on Damascus Road.
Yes, no problem here.That is not what Ryrie and Chafer say.
Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church. “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ] Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.”
I do give references to my quotes!
Those who believe we under the dispensation of grace need to be reminded that grace is a big thread that runs throughout all of scripture which includes both the OT and NT.
I wonder which dispensation the intertestamental period represents?
See, there you go again, pretending you understand something you are absolutely clueless about. It would be most benifial to you if you just stick to talking about what you believe because you have a hugely limited understanding of what dispensationalists 'actaully' believe. Even when we tell, state it in the BF&M and declare it their theological works on their views of eschetology - you still don't believe it and will not recant what you willingly disbelieve (even when told you are wrong) and then go on to perpetuate those untruths about what we believe.I know and have wondered. I finally came to the conclusion that it must have been Divine intervention that resulted in that statement in the BF&M; particularly since it is contrary to the dispensational definition of the Church.
I have absolutely no problem with their defination nor the BF&M.I did not make up the dispensationalist definition of the Church. I have used quotes from Chafer, Ryrie, and Walvoord for their grossly incorrect definition. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them; don't make false accusations about me.
No one said that is wasn't, in 'this dispensation of grace'. However that does not negate the 'fact' that we also believe 'after' the mil-reign they both will become one - the 'Church'.You know very well that dispensationalists teach that the church is limited to those saved during the so-called dispensation of grace.
Do you remember how they dealt with the intertestamental period? What dispensation did they name that.Parenthetical theology is no theology. They started with the gap theory and continued with gaps throughout scripture.
Then they divided the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, plus a spurious, mystical secret rapture. Then, they had the nerve to criticize the 7th Day adventists because they made an adjustment when Jesus failed to return at the turn of the last century.
In what way? Jesus did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil. How does that separate the OT grace from NT grace.No, even Paul distinguishes it and this time from the others. It run through all of the scriptures of course, but 'now' it is different from all the other times in scripture as it is now in the forefront.