Ohhhhhhhh:laugh:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dispensationalism Defined, Discussed, Debated
- Thread starter Sapper Woody
- Start date
Ohhhhhhhh:laugh:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The Deliverer came out of Zion 2000 years ago!
Consider what GOD through the Apostle Paul tells us in the following Scripture:
Galatians 3:16-18
16. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
17. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
18. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
So the promise was to the "SEED", Jesus Christ. Then we read:
Galatians 3:28, 29
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Therefore all those who are redeemed by Jesus Christ inherit the promised made to Abraham whether Jew or Gentile. And since the blood of Jesus Christ is required for the redemption of all it makes no difference whether the redemption in time occurred before or after the Cross.
No replacement doctrine here, simply continuation of building the household of Faith, the Church.
Ephesians 2:18-22
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
And that Church, both Jew and Gentile, male and female, inherited all the promises of GOD!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Like it or not the Church as a "parenthesis" an intercalation in GOD's program for Israel is pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. Thankfully some, called progressive dispensationalists, are shuffling their feet and trying to divorce themselves of that horrendous doctrine.
I should mention that Dr. Thomas Ice is a current dispensational scholar, not one of the golden oldies!
Well at least you admit your error. God takes that into account when He judges, you know.
What is addressed is broad-brushing Dispensationalism.
Ever heard of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism?
Has OR ever brought that up?
God bless.
Last edited by a moderator:
And how many times have you ever commended Progressive Dispensationalists on their doctrine? In fact, when exactly did you become aware of Progressive Dispensationalists?
What do you think of their (some of them, anyway) view that Michael in Revelation is Christ?
So this means...what?
That Dispensationalists cannot be broad-brushed any more than Historicists can be, right?
God bless.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Only a rabid pre-trib-Rapture Ready dispensationalist could find dispensationalism in the posted Scripture. But then John Nelson Darby found the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church in Isaiah 32. He claims God revealed it to him!
Last edited by a moderator:
Not true.
And you know that is why you will not answer a simple question: when exactly did that Wall come down?
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That question has been answered numerous times. If you are unable to comprehend then I can't help you. I don't feel sorry for you but I can't help you!
Are you deliberately trying to hijack this thread? The above is my final response to your silly posts.
Ephesians 1:21 from the imterlinear, that is straight from Greek to English,
21 OVER-UP OF-EVERY ORIGINal sovereignty AND authority AND ABILITY power AND masterdom AND EVERY NAME beING-NAMED NOT ONLY IN THE eon this but AND also IN THE beING-ABOUT one-impending.
Then you explain it from the interlinear translation especially the Greek word "EON."
Holding to a premil, pretrib rapture without being dispensationalist is called historical premillenialism, and many have held it down through the years, including John R. Rice, who was never a dispensationalist, though he liked Scofield. (He was somewhat disappointed when I joined a dispensationalist mission board.
)
Holding to a premil, pretrib rapture without being dispensationalist is called historical premillenialism, and many have held it down through the years, including John R. Rice, who was never a dispensationalist, though he liked Scofield. (He was somewhat disappointed when I joined a dispensationalist mission board.
Actually historical premillennialism does not believe in a pretrib rapture. A pretrib rapture is the defining point in whether a premillennial view is dispensational or covenantal.
Holding to a premil, pretrib rapture without being dispensationalist is called historical premillenialism, and many have held it down through the years, including John R. Rice, who was never a dispensationalist, though he liked Scofield. (He was somewhat disappointed when I joined a dispensationalist mission board.
That still just leaves me in awe, lol. He was your grandfather? Can't remember.
So did you guys ever discuss the differences?
God bless.
Not true at all.
Not all Dispensationalists are Pre-Trib and not all Dispensationalism can be defined by Eschatological view.
God bless.
I actually didn't say that. I said the vice versa...all pre-trib premillennials are dispensationalists.
I responded to what you said:
And you have no justification of saying that a First Century teaching is Dispensationalism.
The Rapture is a First Century Teaching, and it's timing is also derived from the First Century teachings.
That is the fact. The teaching has not changed in 2,000 years.
Actually History is recorded in Scripture, and it is hard for me to imagine Paul embracing a view other than a Pre-Trib position. Of course we have to consider that Paul died before Revelation was circulated. But based on his teaching in 2 Thessalonians it seems fairly clear to me that Paul taught a Pre-Trib Rapture.
I am pre-trib and I am not a Dispensationalist.
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ reigns in this eon or age and in the eon or age to come. Saying there is an age to come is no more dispensational than saying there was 2014 AD and now 2015 AD
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Holding to a premil, pretrib rapture without being dispensationalist is called historical premillenialism, and many have held it down through the years, including John R. Rice, who was never a dispensationalist, though he liked Scofield. (He was somewhat disappointed when I joined a dispensationalist mission board.
I was nor aware that any historical/covenant premillennialist believed in a pre-trib removal of the Church.
When I say historical premillennialism, I'm using it as a technical term. Maybe you would understand it better if I referred to it by its other names "post-tribulational premillennialism" or "covenantal premillennialism". And I would say based on scripture in its entirety (not just 2 Thess. 4), there is not a pre-trib rapture. Even the early Church fathers believed in a post-trib premillennialism.