Eschatology

[OldRegular]

So what is your problem. Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem with that?

I have no problem! Those who hold to the dispensationalism of Darby/Scofield do! In my humble opinion of course!

Since Adam mankind has been in rebellion against God and always will be until God the Holy Spirit intervenes through the "New Birth"! God has always dealt with man through His Grace and always will!

 

[DHK]

I have no problem! Those who hold to the dispensationalism of Darby/Scofield do! In my humble opinion of course!

Since Adam mankind has been in rebellion against God and always will be until God the Holy Spirit intervenes through the "New Birth"! God has always dealt with man through His Grace and always will!

You failed to answer my question. You simply used a pejorative and avoided it, or were you pretending not to understand English as well. Would you like me to reword my question for you?

 

[asterisktom]

Read your post and appreciate your thoughts. Copied it so I can hopefully study it some more as there seems to be much meat there.

Frankly I have never spent that much time on the issue, perhaps because I have never interpreted the passage "All Israel will be Saved" to mean what the dispensationalists teach. I believe that "all Israel" simply means all those redeemed by Jesus Christ throughout time.

Thank you, OR. I reread the post before I resent it. It reminded me - well, convicted me, actually, that I need to get back to in-depth studying like I did for that article, instead of being side-tracked by politics and such. These are wonderful Christological topics that really bless and encourage.

 

[OldRegular]

You failed to answer my question. You simply used a pejorative and avoided it, or were you pretending not to understand English as well. Would you like me to reword my question for you?

So Sorry but I can only speak the truth as I see it! Are you saying that God dealt with Adam other than through His Grace?

I have no problem! Those who hold to the dispensationalism of Darby/Scofield do! In my humble opinion of course!

Since Adam mankind has been in rebellion against God and always will be until God the Holy Spirit intervenes through the "New Birth"! God has always dealt with man through His Grace and always will!

 

[DHK]

So Sorry but I can only speak the truth as I see it! Are you saying that God dealt with Adam other than through His Grace?

God deals with all men in grace. If he didn't we would all be condemned.
My question was rather simple.
First you quoted a standard definition of dispensationalism:

"A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture."

According to that definition my question was rather simple:

Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem with that?

Let's not be naive and simply say he deals with all men in grace. That is a given. Answer my question more completely as stated.

 

[OldRegular]

God deals with all men in grace. If he didn't we would all be condemned.
My question was rather simple.
First you quoted a standard definition of dispensationalism:

[/SIZE][/B]According to that definition my question was rather simple:

Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem with that?

Let's not be naive and simply say he deals with all men in grace. That is a given. Answer my question more completely as stated.

Since Adam's rebellion God has dealt with all mankind in essentially the same way. We are all sinners by nature and except for the Grace of God we would all suffer the deserved consequence. God has always dealt with mankind through Covenants. That is what Scripture teaches.

I believe the concept of God dealing with mankind through seven different dispensations is nonsense. It does not come from a natural reading of Scripture but is the invention from the mind of John Nelson Darby who, in effect, claims some special revelation. I do not believe that dispensationalism is a Biblical doctrine but is just as manmade as some of the doctrines of Roman Catholicism! If Scofield has not published the SRB dispensationalism would never have prospered in this country or anywhere else. Biblically illiterate people got their hands on the SRB and thought they had some new revelation from God. The idea that Jesus Christ is going to snatch His Church out of the world is contrary to Scripture:

Matthew 16:18. 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.

Matthew 28:18-20
18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The "end of the world" is not the so-called rapture! Furthermore, the idea that God has an earthly people and a heavenly people is clearly refuted by Revelation 21 and 22 and, I am convinced, all of Scripture!!

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

If you are interested in more about the inventor of dispensationalism you can read the following:

{JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE by Dr. Thomas Ice
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

[Thomas Ice is himself a dispensationalist and coauthored Charting the End Times with Tim Lahaye.}​

 

[Revmitchell]

That is not what the father of dispensationalism in this country says!

What Is a Dispensation?
Chapter 2 of "Dispensationalism"
Charles C. Ryrie
There is no more primary problem in the whole matter of dispensationalism than that of definition. By this is meant not simply arriving at a single sentence definition of the word but also formulating a definition/description of the concept. This will require an examination of the scriptural use of the word, a comparison of the word dispensation with related words such as age, a study of the use of the word in church history and some observations concerning the characteristics and number of the dispensations.

To say that there is a great lack of clear thinking on this matter of definition is an understatement. Both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists are often guilty of lack of clarity. Many from both groups are satisfied to use the well-known definition that appears in the notes of the original Scofield Reference Bible: "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God. Seven such dispensations are distinguished in Scripture."​

http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/ccr_2_dispensationalism.htm

[sigh] He is not the "Father" of dispensationalism no matter how much you might want it to be true. And even that definition does not match your ill gotten characterization.

It is a shame one anothers view threatens your own isn't it.

 

[Reformed]

Ryrie is certainly a prominent figure in modern dispensational theology, but the most influential dispensationalists in the United States were arguably C.I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer. They deserve most of the credit for spreading Darby's system throughout broad evangelicalism in the early 20th century.

 

[OldRegular]

[sigh] He is not the "Father" of dispensationalism no matter how much you might want it to be true. And even that definition does not match your ill gotten characterization.

You are wrong and history shows it.

[sigh]It is a shame one anothers view threatens your own isn't it.

Dispensationalism is a manmade doctrine not a Biblical one. When you or any dispensationalist can tell me how "possessing the land for ever" was reduced to only 1000 years then you may have something worth saying.

 

[OldRegular]

Ryrie is certainly a prominent figure in modern dispensational theology, but the most influential dispensationalists in the United States were arguably C.I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer. They deserve most of the credit for spreading Darby's system throughout broad evangelicalism in the early 20th century.

The Scofield Reference Bible did the most damage in my opinion. People either could not or would not differentiate between Scofield's notes and the Word of God.

Dispensationalism is a "schooled doctrine"! It does not follow from a natural reading or study of Scripture but must be taught. The SRB did a remarkable job when placed in the hands of Biblical novices!

 

[asterisktom]

The Scofield Reference Bible did the most damage in my opinion. People either could not or would not differentiate between Scofield's notes and the Word of God.

I always knew that the Scofield Bible was very popular at BJU by the chapel students' audible turning of the page whenever the speaker came to e new page in his Bible message.

Also we had the tongue-in-cheek (but with an element of truth):
"My hope is built on nothing less
than the Scofield Bible with King James notes."

Something like that.

But back then I was a minority with my Thomson Chain.

 

[OldRegular]

I always knew that the Scofield Bible was very popular at BJU by the chapel students' audible turning of the page whenever the speaker came to e new page in his Bible message.

Also we had the tongue-in-cheek (but with an element of truth):
"My hope is built on nothing less
than the Scofield Bible with King James notes."

Something like that.

But back then I was a minority with my Thomson Chain.

My best friend is a Presbyterian, Elder no less. Fortunately when God saved me he recommended the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. Mine is almost 50 years old and as far as I am concerned the very best reference/study Bible even for the novice because it does not corrupt their understanding of Scripture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Josh. 41:23
So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it.

God is not a man that He should lie.

First, there is no Joshua chapter 41 -- I believe you mean Joshua 21:43. Secondly, I note you made no attempt to deal with my other Scripture quotation from the post, Romans 11:25-29.

Sadly, with this view of Joshua 21:43, you have adopted an essentially anti-Semetic view with your apparent interpretation of the verse as meaning that the promises of God to Abram were fulfilled in Joshua. Perhaps that is an unintentional avenue on your part. Either way, claiming all of Israel's land promises have forever been fulfilled in Joshua makes no sense. In fact, even John Calvin said that didn't make any sense.

"" How then can these two things be reconciled, that God, as he had promised, gave possession of the land to the people, and yet they were excluded from some portion by the power or obstinate resistance of the enemy?"

-- John Calvin, Commentaries on The Book of Joshua (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 248.​

Calvin rejects the idea that this passage indicates a fulfillment of God's promises to Abram. He instead saw them as a weak, fleshly view of the scribes completely Joshua's work for him after his death.

"In order to remove this appearance of contradiction, it is necessary to distinguish between the certain, clear, and steadfast faithfulness of God in keeping his promises, and between the effeminacy and sluggishness of the people, in consequence of which the benefit of the divine goodness in a manner slipped through their hands. ... The whole comes to this, that it was owing entirely to their own cowardice that they did not enjoy the divine goodness in all its fullness and integrity."

-- Calvin, p. 248​

One should note that Joshua's commandments from the Lord end in 24:27. Most of the last four chapters are seen as partially Joshua's and mostly the scribes who compiled the book of his writings for him. The emphasis of this summary statement in the book of Joshua (21:43- 45) must be seen against the backdrop of the Lord' s overall charge and promise to give them the land in Genesis 15:7-21, Numbers 24:1-12 and Joshua 1:2-11. Joshua is recording the historical facts that God was faithful, even when the tribes of Israel were only partially true to their word.

It is beyond disputable fact that much of the land still rested in the hands of the Canaanites, the promise that the land of Canaan should be given to the house of Israel for a possession had been fulfilled. God did not deliver the land fully into Israel's hands; He left much of it for them to conquer. Nor did He promise the complete destruction of the Canaanites at the time of Israel's partial possession, but only their gradual extermination.

Exodus 23
29 "I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you.
30 "I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land."

Deuteronomy 7
22 "The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, for the wild beasts would grow too numerous for you."​

And even though the Israelites never came into undisputed possession of the whole of the promised land, to the full extent of the boundaries laid down in the earlier passages -- never conquering Tyre and Sidon for example -- and the unfaithfulness of Israel caused them to see the promises of God unfulfilled, those promises were no more broken on that account than they were through the circumstance that after the death of Joshua and the elder his contemporaries, Israel was compromised by the false religions and the foreign customs of the Canaanites.

Joshua 21:43- 45 must be understood within the overall context of the entire book, not simply trotted out as prooftext, which if not examined within the broader context of Joshua, appears to the ignorant as an argument of disinheritance of the land from Israel. The lesson for us in Joshua is directly tied to the faithfulness of Israel -- and ultimately in the lack of it -- in realizing our own full reward from the Lord. Certainly we can expect salvation by grace through faith alone. But there is so much more to do with our salvation than wait to die and go to heaven. Israel had "much to do" upon reaching it's Promised Land, the result of "believing God and having it reckoned to them as righteousness" just as was the promise Abram received and believed. We too, as Christians in Christ, cannot be content to sit around and do nothing with the gifts and talents we've been given. We'll see heaven if we do, but it won't be as glorious as it will be if we do the work of Christ with the life we have left after our salvation.

If God dispossessed Israel, He will dispossess the lazy, unworking Christian. That is ridiculous. Both scenarios are ridiculous.

 

[DHK]

Since Adam's rebellion God has dealt with all mankind in essentially the same way. We are all sinners by nature and except for the Grace of God we would all suffer the deserved consequence. God has always dealt with mankind through Covenants. That is what Scripture teaches.

I believe the concept of God dealing with mankind through seven different dispensations is nonsense. It does not come from a natural reading of Scripture but is the invention from the mind of John Nelson Darby who, in effect, claims some special revelation. I do not believe that dispensationalism is a Biblical doctrine but is just as manmade as some of the doctrines of Roman Catholicism! If Scofield has not published the SRB dispensationalism would never have prospered in this country or anywhere else. Biblically illiterate people got their hands on the SRB and thought they had some new revelation from God. The idea that Jesus Christ is going to snatch His Church out of the world is contrary to Scripture:

Matthew 16:18. 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.

Matthew 28:18-20
18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The "end of the world" is not the so-called rapture! Furthermore, the idea that God has an earthly people and a heavenly people is clearly refuted by Revelation 21 and 22 and, I am convinced, all of Scripture!!

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

If you are interested in more about the inventor of dispensationalism you can read the following:

{JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE by Dr. Thomas Ice
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

[Thomas Ice is himself a dispensationalist and coauthored Charting the End Times with Tim Lahaye.}​

No, I am not interested on your rant on Darby, Scofield, or anyone else. I asked you a simple question, which for the second time you avoided. I will repeat it again. Do you think that you can give an honest answer this time?

Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem with that?

Let's not be naive and simply say he deals with all men in grace. That is a given. Answer my question more completely as stated.

 

[OldRegular]

No, I am not interested on your rant on Darby, Scofield, or anyone else. I asked you a simple question, which for the second time you avoided. I will repeat it again. Do you think that you can give an honest answer this time?

You have my answer! Adam rebelled against God and thus brought all mankind under the condemnation of God. But God by His Grace shed the blood of an innocent animal to make a covering, an atonement, for Adams transgression. That atonement was only provisional. In Genesis 3:15 God gives us the initial promise of The Redeemer who through His shed blood would provide a permanent covering, atonement, of the sins of the elect of God.

You simply will not accept the truth that dispensationalism is a doctrine invented by John Nelson Darby while recovering from an accident. He apparently read Isaiah xxxii and had an epiphany!

Darby, John Nelson that is, writes:

Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a Davidic reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven.

Ice comments: "Thus, Darby sees the church as distinct from Israel, since there would be a Davidic reign for Israel in the millennium, God’s earthly people. On the other hand, Darby saw that he was positionally united with Christ in heaven, a heavenly destiny."

Dispensationalists today see such a distinction as their sine qua non. Leading dispensational spokesman Charles Ryrie says, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” Ryrie explains:

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 distinctions; and one who does will.

I suggest all dispensationalists read and consider Isaiah 32 from which Darby invented the dispensational "sine qua non"!

 

[DHK]

You have my answer! Adam rebelled against God and thus brought all mankind under the condemnation of God. But God by His Grace shed the blood of an innocent animal to make a covering, an atonement, for Adams transgression. That atonement was only provisional. In Genesis 3:15 God gives us the initial promise of The Redeemer who through His shed blood would provide a permanent covering, atonement, of the sins of the elect of God.

You simply will not accept the truth that dispensationalism is a doctrine invented by John Nelson Darby while recovering from an accident. He apparently read Isaiah xxxii and had an epiphany!

Darby, John Nelson that is, writes: Quote:
Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a Davidic reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven.
the
Ice comments: "Thus, Darby sees the church as distinct from Israel, since there would be a Davidic reign for Israel in the millennium, God’s earthly people. On the other hand, Darby saw that he was positionally united with Christ in heaven, a heavenly destiny."

Dispensationalists today see such a distinction as their sine qua non. Leading dispensational spokesman Charles Ryrie says, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” Ryrie explains:

I suggest all dispensationalists read and consider Isaiah 32 from which Darby invented the dispensational "sine qua non"!

No I don't have your answer. You won't answer my question.
http://www.baptistboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2131860I never said anything about Darby.
I never even said anything about dispensations.
I never said anything about any person at all.

Why are you so adamant upon refusing to answer a question where no name is mentioned, not even the word "dispensation" is mentioned. Give it an honest try OR:

[FONT=&quot]Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do you have a problem with that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let's not be naive and simply say he deals with all men in grace. That is a given. Answer my question more completely as stated.[/FONT]

 

[OldRegular]

No I don't have your answer. You won't answer my question.
http://www.baptistboard.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2131860I never said anything about Darby.
I never even said anything about dispensations.
I never said anything about any person at all.

Why are you so adamant upon refusing to answer a question where no name is mentioned, not even the word "dispensation" is mentioned. Give it an honest try OR:

[FONT=&quot]Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Do you have a problem with that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Let's not be naive and simply say he deals with all men in grace. That is a given. Answer my question more completely as stated.[/FONT]

Read my post #61 again. If you do not understand it then read it again but please don't holler if you don't like it, that is not becoming of a moderator! You should set an example for us!

 

[DHK]

Read my post #61 again. If you do not understand it then read it again but please don't holler if you don't like it, that is not becoming of a moderator! You should set an example for us!

I have no problem! Those who hold to the dispensationalism of Darby/Scofield do! In my humble opinion of course!

Since Adam mankind has been in rebellion against God and always will be until God the Holy Spirit intervenes through the "New Birth"! God has always dealt with man through His Grace and always will!

The above is your answer from post #61 (a red herring).
It has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. Why are you so reluctant to answer simple and straightforward questions. Being a moderator has nothing to do with this. You are the one that is being very belligerent here in avoiding a simple question. Why is that?

 

[OldRegular]

DHK,

Following is your original question to which I responded:

So what is your problem. Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you; that he was tested in a different way than you are; that the revelation he received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem with that?

You started off with the snide: "So what is your problem!

I had no idea why such a snide remark so I responded as follows:

I have no problem! Those who hold to the dispensationalism of Darby/Scofield do! In my humble opinion of course!

Since Adam mankind has been in rebellion against God and always will be until God the Holy Spirit intervenes through the "New Birth"! God has always dealt with man through His Grace and always will!

And then expressed my opinion as to those with a problem. You don't like my answer then so be it. But it is you dispensationalists who have a problem. You lose your cool when someone points out that dispensationalism is a manmade doctrine invented by John Nelson Darby while convalescing from an accident. You persist in getting an answer to a question I have already addressed. Please be adult enough to stop pestering because you don't like my answer. This is a debate forum. As my sainted Father-in-Law would say: "Man up to it"!

I trust that you are happy now! But your remarks which I present below indicate that you probably can't be satisfied. Dr. Thomas Ice has no problem with Darby being the Father id Dispensationalism, why should you?

The above is your answer from post #61 (a red herring).
It has nothing to do with the questions I asked you. Why are you so reluctant to answer simple and straightforward questions. Being a moderator has nothing to do with this. You are the one that is being very belligerent here in avoiding a simple question. Why is that?

I have no problem DHK, I am happy with my Biblical Doctrine whether it is on Soteriology or Eschatology.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Following is your original question to which I responded:

Quite frankly you never responded to the question. You avoided it, as you have up to and including this post.

You started off with the snide: "So what is your problem!

Was there an explanation mark at the end of that statement??
It wasn't meant to be a snide remark. If you want the statement in full, it is "So what is your problem with dispensationalism as per your definition given above?" But I shortened it.

So let me break down the question for you:
Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you?
Do you believe that Adam was tested in a different way than you are?
Do you believe that the revelation Adam received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem in answering these questions?
They require a personal answer as I directed each one to you.

This is a debate forum. If you don't desire to debate, why are you here and why are you posting?

And then expressed my opinion as to those with a problem. You don't like my answer then so be it. But it is you dispensationalists who have a problem. You lose your cool when someone points out that dispensationalism is a manmade doctrine invented by John Nelson Darby while convalescing from an accident. You persist in getting an answer to a question I have already addressed. Please be adult enough to stop pestering because you don't like my answer. This is a debate forum. As my sainted Father-in-Law would say: "Man up to it"!

I trust that you are happy now! But your remarks which I present below indicate that you probably can't be satisfied. Dr. Thomas Ice has no problem with Darby being the Father id Dispensationalism, why should you?

I have no problem DHK, I am happy with my Biblical Doctrine whether it is on Soteriology or Eschatology.

My questions were very specific.
I never mentioned Scofield, Darby, Ice, etc. They were specific questions directed to you. Do you think you can answer them now?