The Days Are Coming When There Will Be A New Covenant With Israel & Judah

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks guys....I'm learning allot:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

You really are not debating, you are taunting hoping you can find an excuse to ban me.

OR, that is not true. I have no reason to do that. The simple fact is that I would rather engage the person in a debate then the person's book. Doesn't that sound like a reasonable request?

You asked for the basis of my beliefs regarding Darby and dispensationalism. I insist that you cannot present Scripture showing a pre=trib Rapture of the Church and you have not and cannot, neither can any other who believes dispensational doctrine.

No. The onus is on you. When you make a statement: "Darby is the founder..." There is no dispensationalism before Darby" Blah, blah, blah...
Then prove it. Give me your documented evidence. I don't have to prove your statements. You stated your "opinions" as fact. Now where is the evidence for your opinions? "Where's the beef!"

Furthermore, you cannot present Scripture showing that the Church for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" an interruption in God's plan for Israel.

We had a good debate going on in a different forum that already is close to 30 pages. I have already presented plenty of evidence, so don't tell me that I haven't. You are like the atheist.
To the atheist I would challenge: Even if I could give you irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, evidence that is true beyond any shadow of a doubt and cannot be refuted, would you then believe?
His answer: "No."
You are the same way. No matter what the Scripture; how much the Scripture, how sound the argument using the Scripture, you will not believe. You are set in your ways and are unteachable concerning this particular subject. You just proved it.
You cannot present Scripture showing that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a "parenthesis" an interruption in God's plan for Israel."
1. Israel still exists.
2. Christ died for Israel as much as he died for the NT Believer.
3. The church never replaced Israel. That is replacement theology and it is a well-known heresy. Islam believes they will replace Christianity. Do you believe that also. It is also replacement theology.
4. The Lord will deal with Israel in his own time. Romans 9-11 teaches this quite clearly.
5. In the meantime he is calling out a nation to himself (1Pet.2:9)

I present an analysis of Darby's life that led to his development of dispensationalism by a prominent dispensationalist and you try to insult me asking

Quite frankly I don't care about Darby; I care about what the Bible says.

The statement above is pure garbage. In my last post I presented a quote from a previous post showing that I conceded that there were writers prior to Darby who indicated there were different dispensations. I present it again hoping you will be courteous enough to admit you are misrepresenting what I say:

You don't get it do you. It is impossible for you to offer any evidence for the statements you make. Let me say it again:

It is impossible for you to state: "There was no dispensationalism before Darby, or that Darby was the founder of it."
Pure garbage. The statement is not a proveable statement. You have no documentation, evidence, nor ever will have. Can you interview every person between Darby and the Apostles to very if this is true or not? NO! Therefore it is a false statement; one that cannot be proven.

I did not say there were earlier dispensationalists. I said well you can read what I said above. Paul mentioned one dispensation but he was no dispensationalist.

Did you say this or not?

"Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture. It is true that there were some earlier writers who spoke of dispensations but Scripture does not. Scripture speaks of Covenants and God deals with people through Covenants. The word dispensation does not appear in the OT and only 4 times in the NT."

The above are your words.

The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

[/quote]
That is not what it says! Why are you adding to the Scriptures?

 

[OldRegular]

That is not what it says! Why are you adding to the Scriptures?[/QUOTE]

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

DHK, it is you who added to Scripture not me!

 

[DHK]

That is not what it says! Why are you adding to the Scriptures?

DHK, it is you who added to Scripture not me![/QUOTE]
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV)

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (WEB)

In the past God spoke through the prophets in various ways, at different times.
But now, in these days, he speaks through his Son. To add to that he speaks through His Son whom he has revealed to us through the Word.

There is not one word in those two verses about covenants. You put that word, added it right in there OR--to your shame.
Dispensationalism teaches, exactly as this verse says: --God speaks to (his children) through (his leaders) at many times and in different ways. Now he speaks to His people (the Church, not Israel) through his Son.
[There are no covenants here]

 

[DHK]

You say so but that is not correct. Darby, or someone in his circle, was the granddaddy of the pre-trib rapture. It is true that there were some earlier writers who spoke of dispensations but Scripture does not. Scripture speaks of Covenants and God deals with people through Covenants. The word dispensation does not appear in the OT and only 4 times in the NT.

It is the height of arrogance, a failing dispensationalists have, to imply that those Old Baptists who wrote the Confessions were ignorant of Scripture. I suspect they could put both you and me to shame. Furthermore, I use Scripture as my standard of Faith, not a Confession, not John Nelson Darby, not Margaret MacDonald's vision, not Scofield, not Ryrie, not Walvoord, not Chafer, and most certainly not Bullinger.

Classic dispensationalism is, in my opinion, the invention of John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth [England} Brethern in the early 19th Century. It is most encouraging to see that some dispensationalists are rejecting the dispensational doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church and are taking a position more like the Covenant or historical premillennialists.

This is one of your original posts. You keep on emphasizing how Darby is the father of Dispensationalism.

Here is something for you to think about:

[SIZE=+3]B) HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF DISPENSATIONALISM[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]There is evidence from early church writers of dispensational thinking. Ref. "The Moody Handbook of Theology" by Paul Ennis.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Writings of Justin Martyr, (A.D. 110-165)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Augustine (A.D. 354-430)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]John Edwards (1637-1716)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]All of these believed in dispensationalism. All of them. As noted above you can find the information in Dr. Ennis's fine book: "The Moody Handbook of Theology." I would highly recommend it.
[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+2]BTW, this is an excellent article to read:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm
[/SIZE]

 

[OldRegular]

Following is a correction to my post #80. The post did not give credit to DHK {his post 79} for the Scripture passage Hebrews 1.1. Sorry about that. It has led to some confusion.

The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

 

[OldRegular]

DHK, it is you who added to Scripture not me!

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV)

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (WEB)

In the past God spoke through the prophets in various ways, at different times.
But now, in these days, he speaks through his Son. To add to that he speaks through His Son whom he has revealed to us through the Word.

There is not one word in those two verses about covenants. You put that word, added it right in there OR--to your shame.
Dispensationalism teaches, exactly as this verse says: --God speaks to (his children) through (his leaders) at many times and in different ways. Now he speaks to His people (the Church, not Israel) through his Son.
[There are no covenants here]

I never said there were covenants in that passage of Scripture. You posted it originally {post #79} as follows:

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Again, it is silly to claim that passage supports dispensationalism!

 

[OldRegular]

This is one of your original posts. You keep on emphasizing how Darby is the father of Dispensationalism.

Here is something for you to think about:
[/B][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=+2]All of these believed in dispensationalism. All of them. As noted above you can find the information in Dr. Ennis's fine book: "The Moody Handbook of Theology." I would highly recommend it.
[/SIZE]


[SIZE=+2]BTW, this is an excellent article to read:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm
[/SIZE]

Not one of them believed in the dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby.

 

[DHK]

I never said there were covenants in that passage of Scripture. You posted it originally {post #79} as follows:


Again, it is silly to claim that passage supports dispensationalism!

Why would that be OR?
God in different (dispensations) spoke in different ways through the prophets.
But now in these last days he speaks to us through his Son.
Is that so hard to believe?
Why reject it? It says nothing of covenants. A dispensation is a period of time which is exactly what those verses speak about.

 

[OldRegular]

Why would that be OR?
God in different (dispensations) spoke in different ways through the prophets.
But now in these last days he speaks to us through his Son.
Is that so hard to believe?
Why reject it? It says nothing of covenants. A dispensation is a period of time which is exactly what those verses speak about.

It says absolutely nothing about dispensations either. And I repeat did not say that passage spoke anything about covenants. You know that and it is disingenuous for you to say so!

The idea that God deals with different ways with mankind implies that God changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. God has always dealt with man through Grace. Man sure does not change; he is the same sinful creature since the rebellion of Adam and Eve. And God's way of dealing with man does not change.

The first example of the Grace of God is shown in Genesis 3 after Adam and Eve had rebelled against God. Recognizing their sin they tried to cover their nakedness, for some reason indicative of their sin, with leaves. God sought them out, killed an animal, shed its blood, made a covering of skins to cover their nakedness, their sin. That covering, that shed blood, that atonement was a picture of that perfect sacrifice promised in Genesis 3:15.

Again, God has always dealt with man by Grace, not through the 6 or 7 dispensations of John Nelson Darby or Cyrus Scofield either.

 

[OldRegular]

You are like the atheist.
To the atheist I would challenge: Even if I could give you irrefutable evidence that Jesus Christ is God, evidence that is true beyond any shadow of a doubt and cannot be refuted, would you then believe?
His answer: "No."
You are the same way. No matter what the Scripture; how much the Scripture, how sound the argument using the Scripture, you will not believe. You are set in your ways and are unteachable concerning this particular subject. You just proved it.

Very gracious of you to compare me to an atheist! And all because I will not believe the false doctrine of Dispensationalism. All because I believe Jesus Christ mean't what he said in John 5:28, 29 about a general resurrection and judgment and reject the unscriptural teaching of a pre-trib Rapture of the Church. All because I reject the doctrine of the "parenthesis" church. All because I believe that Jesus Christ was truthful when he told the Father: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. John 17:4.

I have challenged you to present just one verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib Rapture. You have not done so, neither has any other dispensationalist on this BB.

I have challenged you to present just one verse of Scripture that teaches a "parenthesis" church. You have not done so, neither has any other dispensationalist on this BB.

 

[DHK]

It says absolutely nothing about dispensations either. And I repeat did not say that passage spoke anything about covenants. You know that and it is disingenuous for you to say so!

The idea that God deals with different ways with mankind implies that God changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. God has always dealt with man through Grace. Man sure does not change; he is the same sinful creature since the rebellion of Adam and Eve.

The first example of the Grace of God is shown in Genesis 3 after Adam and Eve had rebelled against God. Recognizing their sin they tried to cover their nakedness, for some reason indicative of their sin, with leaves. God sought them out, killed an animal, shed its blood, made a covering of skins to cover their nakedness, their sin. That covering, that shed blood, that atonement was a picture of that perfect sacrifice promised in Genesis 3:15.

Again, God has always dealt with man by Grace, not through the 6 or 7 dispensations of John Nelson Darby or Cyrus Scofield either.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

That is not what the verse says is it.
First it says nothing about covenants, which you first said.
Second, it DOES say that God SPOKE in DIFFERENT ways at various times in the past.
Third it DOES say, that contrary to the past, God SPEAKS TODAY, in yet another way then in the past--through his Son.
Fourth, there are more than just two dispensations (in the past and in these last days).
Fifth, he is speaking of periods of time (dispensations--past, present, etc.) and not covenants. You need to look at things objectively.

 

[DHK]

Very gracious of you to compare me to an atheist! And all because I will not believe the false doctrine of Dispensationalism.

Very gracious of you to call perhaps as many as half the posters of this board as those who believe in false doctrine--heretics perhaps? Really: all of us OR? There are many of us that believe in dispensationalism and you say that all of us are heretics believing in false doctrine?? Don't you think you are taking this a bit too far?
I don't believe in covenantal theology but not once would I ever imply that it is heresy. I simply said it is a different way of looking at things.
Concerning atheism, I didn't compare you to one. Read more carefully.
I compared the way you answer a post to the way an atheist answers a question. Both you and he would deny solid evidence if set before you. We have had threads like this before.

All because I believe Jesus Christ mean't what he said in John 5:28, 29 about a general resurrection and judgment and reject the unscriptural teaching of a pre-trib Rapture of the Church. All because I reject the doctrine of the "parenthesis" church. All because I believe that Jesus Christ was truthful when he told the Father: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. John 17:4.

We can differ, but why imply that I am a heretic, and say I believe in false doctrine?
--John 5:28,29: It speaks of two resurrections: the just and the unjust.
--I have never used the term "parenthesis church." That is your term.
First I don't believe in a "church", only churches. A "universal church" is a misnomer. The word "ekklesia" means assembly and there is no such thing as a universal assembly, hence all churches are local churches.

The "Church Age" or the age of NT churches began at Pentecost when the first NT church was formed, the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
There is no parenthesis here. Jesus said that John the Baptist was the last of the OT prophets. Paul wrote that Israel was set on the shelf for a season. Peter said that God is calling a nation out for himself. And the church (local) is God's ordained institution for which He is using to carry out His purpose today.

The Lord will continue to use the local church until the believers in Christ, collectively known as the bride of Christ, will be raptured. Christ is coming for his bride. He is the bridegroom. You can read about this in Eph.5. The rapture is spoken of in 1Thes.4:16-18, as opposed to the Second Coming in 2Thes. 1:7-10.
After the rapture will be 7 years of Tribulation. Then Christ will come for "His own," or the nation of Israel. They will turn to him as a nation, "and so all Israel shall be saved. The enemies of Israel shall be defeated, and shortly after then the Millennial Kingdom will be literally established with Christ sitting on the throne.
Believers are not appointed to wrath.

I have challenged you to present just one verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib Rapture. You have not done so, neither has any other dispensationalist on this BB.

I have challenged you to present just one verse of Scripture that teaches a "parenthesis" church. You have not done so, neither has any other dispensationalist on this BB.

Well now I have.
I also challenge you to read this link. It is much shorter than the ones you quote from and ask us to read from:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

 

[OldRegular]

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

That is not what the verse says is it.
First it says nothing about covenants, which you first said.

That is a lie! Show me where I said that Hebrews 1:1 spoke of covenants.

Second, it DOES say that God SPOKE in DIFFERENT ways at various times in the past.

He spoke through different prophets!

Third it DOES say, that contrary to the past, God SPEAKS TODAY, in yet another way then in the past--through his Son.

The Apostle John speaks of God the Son as the Word. Therefore God has always spoken to us through His Word {though He did speak to some of the patriarch's directly or in a pre-incarnate state.} Now in the Incarnation the Word is speaking directly through the God-Man, Jesus Christ and giving us His final revelation.

Fourth, there are more than just two dispensations (in the past and in these last days).

You can't prove there are more than two through Scripture but I can prove through Scripture that God dealt with mankind through Covenants. Big, Big, Big difference.

Fifth, he is speaking of periods of time (dispensations--past, present, etc.) and not covenants. You need to look at things objectively.

You are simply wrong. I look at things objectively and the Bible teaches that God deals with mankind through covenants and by His Grace. Scripture, in general, is not written to conceal anything from man. Reading through the Bible I read of Covenants, not dispensations. Believing and teaching that God deals with mankind through Covenants is a natural understanding of Scripture because it is taught in Scripture. Believing and teaching that God deals with mankind through different dispensations with different demands in which man sees a different God is an unnatural interpretation of Scripture.

********************************************************

Poor Old Dr. Thomas Ice, he still believes that Darby is the Father of Dispensationalism. He needs to commune with you DHK!

DARBY'S CONTRIBUTION

Darby is the father of dispensationalism. " Although he was not a systematic theologian, he was an expositor of ' dispensational truth.' He synthesized exegetical truths to show the full story-line of the Bible, God' s activity in human history" (Elmore, 312). Darby' s

employment of the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation for all of Scripture, including prophecy, naturally led to the distinction between Israel and the Church. This resulted, of course, in the understanding that the hopes of Israel and those of the Church were of a different nature. (Crutchfield, 341)

Dispensationalism came to North America through Darby and other Brethren before the Civil War. After the war dispensational teachings captured the minds of a significant number of Christian leaders, and by 1875, its distinctives were disseminated throughout Canada and the United States. Dispensationalism spread through preaching, conferences, the founding of schools, and literature. By the turn of the century dispensationalism was well known and quickly became the most popular evangelical system of theology.
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/AShortHistoryOfDispensationalism.html

 

[OldRegular]

Very gracious of you to call perhaps as many as half the posters of this board as those who believe in false doctrine--heretics perhaps?

That is a lie and you know it. The only hyper dispensationalist posting on this BB at this time is beameup. I have called him a heretic and he is because he insists that there are two different Gospels! Dr. Bob himself called those who followed Bullinger heretics.

Extreme Dispensationalism

The movement of Bible students who push the dispensational approach beyond the point where most other dispensationalists would stop is generally called ultradispensationalism. The distinctive feature of ultradispensationalism is its view concerning the beginning of the church. In contrast to mainline dispensationalism, which believes that the church began on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, ultradispensationalism believes the church began later -- the moderate group suggesting Acts 9 or 13 and the more extreme group, Acts 28. (8)

The extreme group in the ultradispensationalist movement follows E.W. Bullinger (1837-1913), a scholar of some renown. Others in this group include Charles H Welch of London, successor to E.W. Bullinger; A.E. Knoch; Vladimir M. Gelesnoff; and Otis Q. Sellers of Grand Rapids. Ethelbert William Bullinger was born on December 15 in Canterbury, England. He was a direct descendent of Hohann Heinrich Bullinger who was a covenant theologian who succeeded Zwingli in Zurich in December of 1531. Bullinger was educated at King's College, London, and was a recognized scholar in the field of biblical languages. The Archbishop of Canterbury granted Bullinger a honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in 1881 in recognition of his biblical scholarship. Dr. Bullinger taught the pretribulation, premillennial rapture view, but he was also considered an ultradispensationalist because "he taught that the gospels and Acts were under the dispensation of law, with the church actually beginning at Paul's ministry after Acts 28:28." Bullinger also believed in a heretical view of the extinction of the soul between death and the resurrection. Many of his admirers were annihilationists. Dr. Bullinger died on June 6, 1913, in London, England. Bullinger placed the Four Gospels and the book of Acts under the Law and believed the dispensation of the Church began with the ministry of Paul after Acts 28:28. He believed that the prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians) set forth the fullness of the revelation of the mystery of this church age. He also denied that water baptism and the Lord's Supper are for this age. His dispensational teachings are the foundation of all the ultradispensational teachings from his day to the present. Almost all ultradispensationalists hold to the doctrine that the church did not begin at Pentecost but did begin with Paul. The New Testament books that set forth the revelation concerning this concept of the church are Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Bullinger identified three periods in the New Testament: (1) the time of the gospels when the gospel was preached to the Jews only, and authenticated by water baptism; (2) the transitional period in Acts and the corresponding earlier New Testament epistles when the offer still went to the Jews, offering them participation in the "bride church" and authenticated by two baptisms, water and Spirit; (3) the period of Jew and Gentile as one body in Christ and authenticated by Spirit baptism alone. Bullinger believed that the Gentile church is only related to Christ through the Spirit, so baptism and the Lord's Supper have no significance for the Gentile Church. Bullinger believed that these rites relate to the flesh. (9)
http://www.bibleteacher.org/con_27.htm

 

[OldRegular]

The Lord will continue to use the local church until the believers in Christ, collectively known as the bride of Christ, will be raptured. Christ is coming for his bride. He is the bridegroom. You can read about this in Eph.5. The rapture is spoken of in 1Thes.4:16-18, as opposed to the Second Coming in 2Thes. 1:7-10.
After the rapture will be 7 years of Tribulation. Then Christ will come for "His own," or the nation of Israel. They will turn to him as a nation, "and so all Israel shall be saved. The enemies of Israel shall be defeated, and shortly after then the Millennial Kingdom will be literally established with Christ sitting on the throne.
Believers are not appointed to wrath.

Well now I have.
I also challenge you to read this link. It is much shorter than the ones you quote from and ask us to read from:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

No you have not. There is not one passage you posted that says one thing about a pre-trib rapture of the Church. You are simply reading something into those verses that you want to. It is a great pity that you cannot read a general resurrection and general judgment into John 5:28, 29 because that is what Jesus Christ is teaching. That was the doctrine of the Baptist Churches until John Nelson Darby and Cyrus Scofield and the SRB came along with their dispensational error.

 

[DHK]

That is a lie! Show me where I said that Hebrews 1:1 spoke of covenants.

Don't get so emotional. You did. It was in post #80.

The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2106004&postcount=80
I gave that Scripture as an example of dispensationalism; you expounded on it as covenantalism. Read your own post for yourself. It isn't a lie.

He spoke through different prophets!

Yes he did, in times past, or in that particular dispensation, but now in these last days (or in this dispensation), he speaks to us through His Son.
Easy, isn't it? No covenants required.

The Apostle John speaks of God the Son as the Word. Therefore God has always spoken to us through His Word {though He did speak to some of the patriarch's directly or in a pre-incarnate state.} Now in the Incarnation the Word is speaking directly through the God-Man, Jesus Christ and giving us His final revelation.

1. John is not the author of Hebrews.
2. It is true that the Son, in these last days, is revealed to us through the Word, which is the point of verse two. But that is not what verse on is teaching, is it? That is the comparison that is being made. He didn't speak through his word to the prophets. He spoke in various ways at various times.
We have the Word all the time.

You can't prove there are more than two through Scripture but I can prove through Scripture that God dealt with mankind through Covenants. Big, Big, Big difference.

Yes I can. I am not going to take the time list them all here. I gave you a link to read. They are listed all there with Scripture references provided.
Here it is again:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

You are simply wrong. I look at things objectively and the Bible teaches that God deals with mankind through covenants and by His Grace. Scripture, in general, is not written to conceal anything from man.

Then you should know all there is to know about the Bible. You should have no problem with any Scripture. You know everything there is to know; nothing is concealed from you. Right?

Reading through the Bible I read of Covenants, not dispensations.

Yet at the same time Paul speaks about dispensations. Or are you going to deny that also?
Look, you know that dispensation is used in the Bible. It is used four times.
Now, the word "covenant" is used 18 times, but 12 of those times is used in the Book of Hebrews, where the author is specifically comparing the NT sacrifice of Christ to the OT "covenant." Thus "covenant" is used only six other times in the NT, not many more times then dispensation.

Believing and teaching that God deals with mankind through Covenants is a natural understanding of Scripture because it is taught in Scripture.

Primarily the Old Testament. We are not Israel; do not live under the law.

Believing and teaching that God deals with mankind through different dispensations with different demands in which man sees a different God is an unnatural interpretation of Scripture.

What you just described is not what dispensationalists believe. You continue to misrepresent them. Shall I do the same to you?

Poor Old Dr. Thomas Ice, he still believes that Darby is the Father of Dispensationalism. He needs to commune with you DHK!

Is he your authority?
Take a look at the link I gave you. Concerning dispensationalism it is more authoritative than Dr. Ice.

 

[beameup]

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Gal 2:7

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the
revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, Rom 16:25

Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 2 Tim 2:8

According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. 1 Tim 1:11

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom 2:16


"Replacement Theology" is 4th Century Catholic Theology. Augustine of Hippo was its main proponent ("Saint Augustine").

And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. Mt 24:14

Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

The "Four Spiritual Laws" (tract) makes no mention of a coming Kingdom,
it makes no mention of these things because they are unnecessary.
The Gospel of the Kingdom however, of necessity does.

 

[DHK]

That is a lie and you know it. The only hyper dispensationalist posting on this BB at this time is beameup. I have called him a heretic and he is because he insists that there are two different Gospels! Dr. Bob himself called those who followed Bullinger heretics.

Here is your exact statement:

Very gracious of you to compare me to an atheist! And all because I will not believe the false doctrine of Dispensationalism.

1. Those words were directed at me, not beamup.
2. There is no reference to Bullinger, only to me.
3. There is no reference to hyper-dispensationalism, just to me.
4. There is no reference there to someone believing two gospels, just a statement to me.

I am the dispensationalist that you are accusing of comparing you to an atheist (not quite true), and believing "the false doctrine of Dispensationalism."

Like half of the other posters on this board I believe in dispensationalism, which is not a false doctrine, not heresy. Please refuse from attacking it as such. It is out of order.
It is also out of order that after having done so, to try to sidestep the issue and say that you didn't do it. You did.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
That is a lie! Show me where I said that Hebrews 1:1 spoke of covenants.

Don't get so emotional. You did. It was in post #80.

[Originally Posted by OldRegular]The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=80[/quote]

DHK

Consider what happened in my post # 80 but first consider your post #79.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Now look at the error I made in post #80. I am responding to your comment on Hebrews 1:1. But also note that the passage is not preceded by QUOTE=DHK;2105990 but is followed by [/quote] creating the impression that I posted the Scripture.

************************************************************

The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?/QUOTE]

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

I noticed the error too late to make a correction but did so in post #86.

Following is a correction to my post #80. The post did not give credit to DHK {his post 79} for the Scripture passage Hebrews 1.1. Sorry about that. It has led to some confusion.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
The Bible does not teach that God dealt with people through dispensations but through covenants.

Originally Posted by DHK
Hebrews 1:1-2 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
--That is a summary or example of dispensationalism. What is your problem with it? Or don't you believe it?

Attempting to prove dispensationalism by that passage from Hebrews is silly! God spoke by the prophets and he dealt with people through covenants.

I cannot believe you did not see the correction because I used it again in post #87. DHK you have deliberately time and again used that error, a type which is common on this BB and which I corrected, to deliberately and falsely accuse me of lying. That is devious and unacceptable.