Darby = Dispensationalism

[OldRegular]

I just don't understand the literal interpretation they used in light of Rev 1 and it's allegorical view of Christ and the seven churches of Asia Minor...

They really do not use a consistent hermeneutic, just whatever meets their pre-conceived ideology!

 

[DHK]

They really do not use a consistent hermeneutic, just whatever meets their pre-conceived ideology!

The proper hermeneutic of any portion of the Bible is to take it literally unless the context demands a figurative interpretation. That is usually introduced by a figure of speech as in a metaphor, simile, parable, etc.
Historically the Bible was always interpreted literally.
Origen introduced an allegorical method of interpretation, and not until Augustine came on the scene did he popularize it. Before that time the literal method of interpretation was always the preferred method of interpretation.

 

[OldRegular]

The proper hermeneutic of any portion of the Bible is to take it literally unless the context demands a figurative interpretation. That is usually introduced by a figure of speech as in a metaphor, simile, parable, etc.
Historically the Bible was always interpreted literally.
Origen introduced an allegorical method of interpretation, and not until Augustine came on the scene did he popularize it. Before that time the literal method of interpretation was always the preferred method of interpretation.

Dis Paul write his allegory before or after Origen {Galatians 4:21ff}?

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Which would make arguments that systematic theologies originated doctrine absurd.

Yes or no?

Yes.

OP dismantled, then, if we are right.



And I think it is clear that any Doctrine that can be shown in the Bible as accurate, especially when it is specifically stated it is being revealed, makes the case.

I use the terminology of systematic theologies (as well as you yourself) as a kind of shorthand to address the differences concerning the interpretations of scripture relative to a focused study e.g. The second coming of Christ. If you read my past posts you will see that I say "generally" I am dispensational because it easily identifies some of my views on the Second Coming of Christ.

Labeling has become an almost necessary evil and that began in the infant church.

And Paul corrected it. It was sin then, it is sin now.

"Christian" is the only title we should be zealous for. And while I am glad I am a Baptist, if by no other reason than I have found no other group I see as close to Biblical Doctrine (Independent Baptists, that is, lol), I am first and foremost a Christian because I follow Christ and His teachings.

So I can't really say it is a necessary evil, though it does at least keep some of the stranger characters out of the BB. Not all of them...

...I'm living proof of that.

I have said this as well as using these labels especially if men are identified as "originators" of these doctrines.

And it is error to say Darby is the originator of the Pre-Trib Rapture, even as it is error to say the catholic Church is the originator of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

If we have identified ourselves of Baptists that means we identify with the distinctives of the Baptist denomination . One cannot find "The Baptist Distinctives" per se in the scripture It is a tool to show our differences with other Christians and a shorthand systematic theology.

Not necessarily. I do not identify myself as embracing the typical Baptist teaching of tithing. That is just a staple in most Baptist fellowships I have been a part of. I do not view this as a New Covenant Doctrine. I do see Paul instructing the Corinthians in regards to the supply of those that minister the Gospel, telling them that if they have supplied unto them that which is spiritual, they should supply that which is carnal (physical).

But tithing is a Covenant of Law practice not imposed on believers under the New Covenant.

It's okay to disagree with a few things the group one associates with teaches as a general rule, lol.

e.g. Believers Baptism distinctive - Total immersion of a believer in water

Wile I think immersion is the way in view Scripturally, I think if we asked most Baptist Pastors they would concede that an emergency situation (dying in the desert with just a canteen) it might just be okay to observe sprinkling, lol.

with the Trinitarian formula as an ordinance that portrays our identity with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, said water baptism not necessary to salvation.

Not necessarily something exclusive to Baptists.

So being a Baptist has a systematic theology attached to it whether we accept it or not. But in fact we do accept it as a way of identifying ourselves and not as a way of developing a scripture but to differentiate our selves from our non-baptist reformed brethren who practice pado-baptism and/or sprinkling as a covenant ritual.

I wouldn't go that far, because there are so many types of Baptists who embrace different Systems that make them distinctive.

But where Baptists are in agreement with Scripture, this is not attributed to a System, but to the Word of God.

Each method you name above can be tested to the Word of God to see if it has a Biblical support. If it does not, then we see the true Systematic nature, rather than Biblical truth.

That is something that is especially true in the Forums.

And when we apply that to the Doctrine of the Rapture, we can say that if any formalized media originated the Doctrine, it is that which was formalized in the Canon.

As far as popularity arising, well...even the blind dog finds the water-bowl every now and then.

Do you see that you are doing this yourself (discrediting others Christians) by labeling them with the innuendo phrase of "blind dog"?

Why would you think people discovering and then popularizing sound doctrine would be discrediting them? lol

If I want to discredit someone, and I have no reservation about that, because we are to discredit false doctrine and false teachers...then I would point out specific groups like the Catholic Church and specific doctrines such as indulgences and Doctrine of the co-Redemptrixt.

The point above is the same one gone ignored in numerous threads. The Doctrine of the Pre-Trib Rapture is not a doctrine originated by Darby, as OR incessantly claims. It is a First Century Doctrine from A First Century Teacher and First Century texts, which Biblical Scholarship attests through the manuscript evidence. That this Doctrine, just like pre-millennialism itself, would end up obscured among the many vying factions...

...is no great wonder.

Years ago when I joined the BB I did use discrediting terms and phrases but saw (or was shown the error of my ways) and repented and publicly apologized to those whom I had offended. I still "slip" on occasion.

Hank, you have to yank a few chains now and then.

It is just an ancient teaching technique to get your student's attention by using...the facts. If we molly-coddle everyone, there are going to be some people you won't be able to help.

You seem reasonable enough to me that I would think you would know the difference between insulting someone and stating the facts.

And while a sense of humor may be a method some of us use, lol, like my inclination to call people like OR "popish," maybe that is not for all. But that term has a relevant meaning which makes the use of it in the case of someone like that not an insult, but truer than he would like to admit.

No, it is the Dispensational View in the hot-seat in this thread, unless I am mistaken. At least in the post I responded to.

You are mistaken, it is ORs OP in the hot seat.

It is false.

Calvinism fits the model as well, as does every System, Ism, sect, faith, group, or cult.

Complex doctrinal positions such as dipensationlism have intersecting sets with other doctrine. When that is true and it is helpful to speak about the similarities either in content or history, I use it.

Dispensationalism is not what I would call a "Complex doctrinal position." It is a System of theology that is made up of many doctrinal positions, and among those who call themselves dispensationalists there is, like any other group, a varying range of assorted positions.

It is like Baptists. How many different types of Baptists would we find on here. More importantly, how many of them would agree on every position the other takes.

Just because someone claims to be something, doesn't mean they embrace all of it, or for that matter...even properly understand what the system teaches.

You would likely be in great dispute with a Progressive Dispensationalist, I would guess. You would both be Dispensational, but very different in your theology.

The OP does not have an obsession with Calvinism, but Darbyism. And his theme is that the Pre-Trib Rapture originated with Darby. If that is true, then we may as well say that the Trinity originated with Catholicism. Because they are the group which made this a dogmatic doctrine and first imposed it into a formalized setting.

Actually Darrell, the doctrine of the Trinity developed over 3 centuries before what we now call the Roman Catholic Church in its ritualized form existed.

Actually, Hank, lol, the Doctrine of the Trinity was revealed by Christ to the First Century Jews.

And like I said...even the blind dog finds the water-bowl once in a while.

We can't say everything Catholics believe is in error, lol.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

The first clarification of the doctrine of the Trinity which was made from a collection of scripture was developed by Athanasius of Alexandria - circa AD 325 - and (here we go again with men's names) was called the Athanasius Creed.

http://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs...hanasian-creed

Seriously? lol

Let me give an earlier example:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 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;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:


By itself we might not see the Trinity, but, we can see that Christ is said to be God, and the Father is said to be God.

We see God spoke to the Children of Israel:


Hebrews 3:7-12

King James Version (KJV)

7 Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,

8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:

9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.

10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.

11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.


Here is an earlier testimony of the Trinity:


Acts 20:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


Here is an earlier testimony:


John 8:58

King James Version (KJV)

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


And another:


John 14

King James Version (KJV)

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.


And another:


16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.



And another...

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

And ano...

...well, you get the point.

Just like Catholicism did not originate the Doctrine of the Trinity, even so Darby did not originate the Doctrine.

And while we do not have a passage that states either "God is a Trinity," or "The Rapture takes place before the Tribulation," when we compare the relevant texts we are forced to make a conclusion as to whether the Doctrine is a new doctrine, as OR constantly tries to teach (and successfully to those who are followers, rather than students themselves), or a First Century Doctrine.

And there is only one place we can go to determine if it is a First Century Doctrine.

All others quote Church Fathers.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Accepted by Protestants, Reformed and yes even Baptists, although many prefer some elements of the Nicene Creed

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/creeds

Blind dogs and all that...

My discussion with OR is/was to show him that the elements of dispensationalism including the pre-trib interpretation of scripture did not originate with Darby of whom I said I did not agree.

Me too, lol.

Difficult, yes, but impossible? I don't think so.

It is a contradictory concept to view the Word of God as given to men that they might understand God and His will and then make Scripture something that no-one can come to dogmatic conclusions about which can then be supported by the Word of God itself.

It is not a mystery book requiring a magic decoder ring, but given to men for the express purpose of knowing the will of God.

While some things are kept hidden as revelation is progressive, ultimately all things will be made clear, and this through the same enlightening method God has always used...the Holy Spirit.

True and the Holy Spirit has also provided the human element to the church to help us along

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

While I agree God has gifted men to be teachers, the fact remains that those teachers themselves are reliant on the Holy Spirit. Just like sound doctrine traces back to the Word of God, an understanding of sound doctrine always, always, always...traces back to God Himself.

If all of us here believe that the Holy Spirit does not use human teachers, why are we here at the BB expressing our objections and attemping to correct others?

No idea how you could possibly interpret what I said to that, lol.

Do you really think I would try to teach people if...I didn't believe there were teachers in the Body?

But, I will say that we should get to the point where we ourselves become teachers. That is the Writer of Hebrews' point in 5:10-6-12.

My venue now is that I am here to shown and understand our differences without the use of insult and innuendo of which I am still occasionally guilty.

Christ was quite "insulting" sometimes. But then so were many if not most if not all of the teachers and Prophets of Scripture.

It is perceived as offense but the truth is that it is an expression of love. Because not defending truth indicates a lack of concern for those you are not straight-forward with.

And I'll be honest, some people will not understand kindness, which they confuse with weakness. There are no weak Prophets, Apostles, or teachers in Scripture. And most of them suffered for the truth.

I'm not saying that we have to be abrasive with everyone, but sometimes you have to meet people at a level they can understand.

And I am sure that we agree that our objections/corrections/sharing among ourselves are (or should not be) for self aggrandizement but for the betterment of our brethren though our method and approach may differ we should all have the following characteristics:

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

May God bless you as well brother.

HankD

Does this passage negate Paul's example?

Was Paul gentle, without striving...when he confronted Peter?

I think you might be confusing meekness with weakness.

Let's see how Paul defines meekness:


[B]2 Corinthians 10 [/B]

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:

2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.


Would we see a weakness in Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians?

Consider:


1 Corinthians 4:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?


Which one do you think Paul was ready to carry out, lol.

Okay, I am wrapping things up here for now, and have enjoyed our discussions, Hank. I pray the Lord will use you mightily on this forum, and when next we meet, Lord willing, we can compare notes again.

And if we happen to meet in the Rapture, I think it would only be fitting we search out a few here and sing a chorus or two of that happiest of Doctrinal Debate songs...

"...I TOLD YOU!"

Of course, I will get busy writing that song, that we might be ready.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Apparently you haven't read that passage of Scripture that that says Jesus Christ died on the Cross for national/ethnic Israel! Not to worry though, I haven't either. Now if one of these pre-cribbers would simply post it save a lot of time.

Be glad to (slur notwithstanding):


Hebrews 9:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Your replacement theology is in error.


God bless.

 

[DHK]

Dis Paul write his allegory before or after Origen {Galatians 4:21ff}?

He used the Greek word "allegory" which was similar to the word for parable. The whole thing was an illustration, and Paul made it clear that it was just that--a parable used for illustrative purposes. We don't need to allegorize when it isn't necessary.

 

[HankD]

While I agree God has gifted men to be teachers, the fact remains that those teachers themselves are reliant on the Holy Spirit. Just like sound doctrine traces back to the Word of God, an understanding of sound doctrine always, always, always...traces back to God Himself.

No idea how you could possibly interpret what I said to that, lol.

Do you really think I would try to teach people if...I didn't believe there were teachers in the Body?

But, I will say that we should get to the point where we ourselves become teachers. That is the Writer of Hebrews' point in 5:10-6-12.

Christ was quite "insulting" sometimes. But then so were many if not most if not all of the teachers and Prophets of Scripture.

It is perceived as offense but the truth is that it is an expression of love. Because not defending truth indicates a lack of concern for those you are not straight-forward with.

And I'll be honest, some people will not understand kindness, which they confuse with weakness. There are no weak Prophets, Apostles, or teachers in Scripture. And most of them suffered for the truth.

I'm not saying that we have to be abrasive with everyone, but sometimes you have to meet people at a level they can understand.

Does this passage negate Paul's example?

Was Paul gentle, without striving...when he confronted Peter?

I think you might be confusing meekness with weakness.

Let's see how Paul defines meekness:

[B]2 Corinthians 10 [/B]

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:

2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.


Would we see a weakness in Paul's correspondence with the Corinthians?

Consider:


1 Corinthians 4:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Which one do you think Paul was ready to carry out, lol.

Okay, I am wrapping things up here for now, and have enjoyed our discussions, Hank. I pray the Lord will use you mightily on this forum, and when next we meet, Lord willing, we can compare notes again.

And if we happen to meet in the Rapture, I think it would only be fitting we search out a few here and sing a chorus or two of that happiest of Doctrinal Debate songs...

"...I TOLD YOU!"

Of course, I will get busy writing that song, that we might be ready.


God bless.

I agree with everything you have said - except - you and I are not apostles and while Christ was a human being He was also God come in the flesh. In both of these situations there were powers with them that - though there could be with us if God had so ordained, He apparently has not.

Yes, both Christ and Paul were not so gentle at times and they were allowed that privilege as the mission demanded. Not so with us I don't believe.
For God's results we need to do things God's way (but you already knew that).

But to be forthright I do get a bit course now and then.

I admire the wisdom God has given you and I hope we have sharpened swords brother.

BTW, my favorite hymn is "Farther Along".

When we see Jesus coming in glory,
When He comes from His home in the sky,
Then we shall meet Him in that bright mansion,
We'll understand it all by and by.

Farther along we'll know all about it,
farther along we'll understand why,
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all by and by.

Written by W.B. Stevens

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

I agree with everything you have said - except - you and I are not apostles and while Christ was a human being He was also God come in the flesh. In both of these situations there were powers with them that - though there could be with us if God had so ordained, He apparently has not.

If you mean Apostolic powers, I think Paul makes it clear that the speaking forth of the Gospel is the most desired goal of believers. I will "covet to prophesy."

While we do not consider ourselves Christ or Paul, we do follow their example.

Consider what Paul did:


Acts 19:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.


Check out the link, it's a good study.

Yes, both Christ and Paul were not so gentle at times and they were allowed that privilege as the mission demanded.

But we are not?


2 Timothy 3:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


And as we both agreed, God has gifted men for these purposes.

Why would we think somehow the same model of instruction which is seen in every Age of Scripture has changed today?

Not so with us I don't believe.

You might start believing it, my friend. Again, some people (and I am one of them, lol) need to be dealt with in a straightforward manner. Trying to be nice is fine, but seldom gets through.

And I think all people want to know, especially when they are new believers with much uncertainty, that God is still putting people in place who know what they believe and can show from Scripture why they believe it. I always try to keep things doctrinal but admit I have a facetious streak that is okay with yanking chains if necessary.

For God's results we need to do things God's way (but you already knew that).

So what is God's way if we do not see it exampled in Scripture?

Not even God withheld the truth for the sake of not offending. The Gospel is offensive, and it is just typical of all of us...we don't like to be told we are wrong.

But to be forthright I do get a bit course now and then.

Just going to happen.

Nothing to be ashamed about:


Ephesians 4:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:


There are things we should get angry about. And sometimes we have to let that anger be known. Some of the garbage we see, and some of the practice we see is simply shameful. And it is because Doctrine has lost it's importance at the leadership level. I left a Church once and yanked my nieces and nephew out of a Christian School because of the failure of the leadership in both places to enforce Church Discipline.

I admire the wisdom God has given you and I hope we have sharpened swords brother.

Nothing special about me, just a Bible Student with a passion for talking to others about the Word of God.

And it has been great to talk with you.

BTW, my favorite hymn is "Farther Along".

When we see Jesus coming in glory,
When He comes from His home in the sky,
Then we shall meet Him in that bright mansion,
We'll understand it all by and by.

Farther along we'll know all about it,
farther along we'll understand why,
Cheer up my brother, live in the sunshine
We'll understand it all by and by.

Written by W.B. Stevens

HankD

Can't say I have a favorite but "How Firm a Foundation" might be a leading contender.

Another would be "Saved by the Blood of the Crucified One."

Okay, be good, my friend, and don't let me discourage you from what is obviously just a natural character disposition, lol. I do think it true that you are going to have to be firm once in a while but I get the impression...you're just naturally a nice guy, and I wouldn't want to discourage that.

Maybe we can paly good cop bad cop if I get the chance to come back around here again.


God bless.

God bless.

 

[HankD]

If you mean Apostolic powers, I think Paul makes it clear that the speaking forth of the Gospel is the most desired goal of believers. I will "covet to prophesy."

While we do not consider ourselves Christ or Paul, we do follow their example.

Consider what Paul did:


Acts 19:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.


Check out the link, it's a good study.




But we are not?


2 Timothy 3:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


And as we both agreed, God has gifted men for these purposes.

Why would we think somehow the same model of instruction which is seen in every Age of Scripture has changed today?



You might start believing it, my friend. Again, some people (and I am one of them, lol) need to be dealt with in a straightforward manner. Trying to be nice is fine, but seldom gets through.

And I think all people want to know, especially when they are new believers with much uncertainty, that God is still putting people in place who know what they believe and can show from Scripture why they believe it. I always try to keep things doctrinal but admit I have a facetious streak that is okay with yanking chains if necessary.




So what is God's way if we do not see it exampled in Scripture?

Not even God withheld the truth for the sake of not offending. The Gospel is offensive, and it is just typical of all of us...we don't like to be told we are wrong.




Just going to happen.

Nothing to be ashamed about:


Ephesians 4:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:


There are things we should get angry about. And sometimes we have to let that anger be known. Some of the garbage we see, and some of the practice we see is simply shameful. And it is because Doctrine has lost it's importance at the leadership level. I left a Church once and yanked my nieces and nephew out of a Christian School because of the failure of the leadership in both places to enforce Church Discipline.




Nothing special about me, just a Bible Student with a passion for talking to others about the Word of God.

And it has been great to talk with you.




Can't say I have a favorite but "How Firm a Foundation" might be a leading contender.

Another would be "Saved by the Blood of the Crucified One."

Okay, be good, my friend, and don't let me discourage you from what is obviously just a natural character disposition, lol. I do think it true that you are going to have to be firm once in a while but I get the impression...you're just naturally a nice guy, and I wouldn't want to discourage that.

Maybe we can paly good cop bad cop if I get the chance to come back around here again.


God bless.

God bless.

I've mellowed over the years I will say that - after 11 children - one biological family, my wife and I have both learned patients via tribulation.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Be glad to (slur notwithstanding):


Hebrews 9:15

King James Version (KJV)

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Your replacement theology is in error.


God bless.

Your ignorance about what I believe is abysmal. I am not a replacement person. The Church is simply the continuation of spiritual Israel and all the redeemed of the Old Testament.

 

[OldRegular]

He used the Greek word "allegory" which was similar to the word for parable. The whole thing was an illustration, and Paul made it clear that it was just that--a parable used for illustrative purposes. We don't need to allegorize when it isn't necessary.

I don't. Do you?

 

[DHK]

I don't. Do you?

If you change the meaning of such a simple word, like "thousand" when it is used five times in seven verses to describe a specific period of time, then you have taken it and spiritualized it to mean something other than it was intended to mean, haven't you?

 

[Darrell C]

I've mellowed over the years I will say that - after 11 children - one biological family, my wife and I have both learned patients via tribulation.

HankD

11...wow.

No kids of my own. Can't say I envy the "tribulation" you've gone through, but I am sure you are blessed, lol. I mean, now that is a quiver full.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Your ignorance about what I believe is abysmal. I am not a replacement person. The Church is simply the continuation of spiritual Israel and all the redeemed of the Old Testament.

You embrace replacement theology. It is not my ignorance in view...I know what I believe.

By the way, the Catholic Church has pretty much always denied replacement theology.




God bless.

 

[HankD]

11...wow.

No kids of my own. Can't say I envy the "tribulation" you've gone through, but I am sure you are blessed, lol. I mean, now that is a quiver full.

God bless.

Yes, blessed is the right word.

Well, when a former Catholic (me) and a former Mormon (wife) get married it's expected I guess.

We raised them (for the most part) on an 80 acre farm in Maine.

They have all turned out pretty good, my youngest graduates this year from the Univ of WA in Pullman, biotech engineer.

HankD

 

[Darrell C]

Yes, blessed is the right word.

Well, when a former Catholic (me) and a former Mormon (wife) get married it's expected I guess.

We raised them (for the most part) on an 80 acre farm in Maine.

They have all turned out pretty good, my youngest graduates this year from the Univ of WA in Pullman, biotech engineer.

HankD

Amazing.

And think of all the free labor...

Just kidding. 80 acres, very cool.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

If you change the meaning of such a simple word, like "thousand" when it is used five times in seven verses to describe a specific period of time, then you have taken it and spiritualized it to mean something other than it was intended to mean, haven't you?

I have taken it to mean the period between the two comings of Jesus Christ. That was traditional Baptist doctrine until Scofield published the Bible with notes that taught "Dispensational falsehoods" not " Biblical truth"!

 

[HankD]

Amazing.

And think of all the free labor...

Just kidding. 80 acres, very cool.


God bless.

And we did the whole farm thing, 2 gardens, milk cow, chickens, eggs, ducks, turkeys, goats, pigs, home made maple syrup from our maples, apple cider from our own trees, etc, etc...

Oh and around 20 cord of wood a year for heating our two story LARGE farmhouse.


HankD