Featured The Messianic Kingdom?

BTW I addressed it by posting what followed those comments.

 

Let's look at this ridiculous quote again Icon:

It really is a smear isn't it?
No dispensationalist believes what I just bolded for you.
Starting from the crucifixion:
The resurrection of Christ was fulfilled.
The ascension was fulfilled.
The choosing of Matthias was fulfilled.
Pentecost was fulfilled.
The signs and wonders at Pentecost were fulfilled.
That the Gentiles would speak in tongues were fulfilled (1Cor.14:21,22)
That the Jews would be set on the shelf and the Kingdom be given to the Gentiles would be fulfilled (Romans 9-11).
That Jewish and Gentiles believers would become one in Christ (Eph.2) would be fulfilled (a mystery of the OT).

In a letter to the church at Ephesus in Revelation, Jesus condemned the church saying "You have lost your first love," and then he warned them:
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
--Only a couple centuries later Ephesus was a complete wasteland. First the Muslims came and took over the place where the church once was. And then, the place became completely desolate.

So, Icon, was there any prophecy NOT fulfilled at all since the resurrection.
What a foolish statement to make. It certainly is not true of this dispensationalist who takes time to study his bible and does not like to be tagged with a belief called by the name "parenthetical."
Do some study first.

 

DHK

The quote is quite accurate...we can look again:thumbs:

No it is not. What you need to understand is people who do not share that view are going to expose it's weakness. What you call a "smear" is in reality a seeking of truth.If the premill view was biblical it can stand any questioning of it.
I have not read enough of Gary North to have a valid opinion of him or his ideas. Some respect him a lot, some dislike him.

I see in this writing however that he quotes directly from original source material.
It is not about him, it is about scripture.

yes they do...they just do not like when it gets exposed in a negative light...you offer it right here in this post.....
you say;
That the Jews would be set on the shelf and the Kingdom be given to the Gentiles would be fulfilled (Romans 9-11).

set on the shelf????? the parenthesis....

you have answered me in other posts...the NC in Hebrews 8 is not for gentiles ...correct,,,,not for the church???

you know he means in reference to Israel specifically.

Once I left the wrong system of dispensationalism I have not kept up with each new twist of new dispy ideas.....as they move away from the basic themes which were completely destroyed.

I will offer more on it as you request me to study more:wavey:

 

Here is why many have moved away from this view;

Eschatology matters. If you commit yourself to any version of pessimillennialism, you will spend your life in a psychological
ghetto.
If every Christian were to do this, the messianic State would ·expand without resistance until it threatened to swallow
the Church.
Modern dispensationalism rests on a view of history that
proclaims the future as lost to Christians during this, the so called Church Age.

The Great Tribulation after the Rapture will destroy the work of the Church that has been built up prior to the Rapture.
That is, the legacy of Christ to His Church is doomed to total destruction when the Jews of the
Great Tribulation era are confronted with the alliance against
them led by the Antichrist and the Beast.their spiritual heirs because of two future discontinuities: the Rapture and the Great Tribulation.
No matter how good our work as Christians maybe, it is doomed.
This view of the future has produced a ghetto mentality, a "form a circle with the wagons"mentality.
It has placed a premium on cultural and intellectual defenses against the external
world.It has also placed barriers against a systematic cultural
and intellectual offense against the external world. Humanism's
victory prior to the bodily return of Christ is inevitable, we are assured; any other view is dismissed as "utopian."
This outlook has created an incentive for Christians to narrow their definition of personal responsibility to the local
church, the family, and perhaps the lower levels of education.
Above the high school level, Christians become openly dependent on one variety or another of humanism to provide the
form and content of education .Christian colleges require their
faculty members to earn Ph.D.degrees from accredited universities,knowing full well that no accredited Christian evangelical
university grants a Ph.D .This mentality lives on the academic
and intellectual crumbs that fall from the humanists' tables. For
over a century, evangelical Christians have been content to live
with this state of affairs. They see no alternative.
They conform to this world because they acknowledge no hope for this world. Unlike the
Amish,who recognize their limits as ghetto residents and who therefore refuse to send their children to school above the eighth grade, fundamentalists send their children, intellectually unprepared, through the gauntlet of humanistic education, usually beginning in kindergarten.
The Amish lose few of their children to the world out side their ghetto; in contrast, fundamentalists have lost millions of theirs.
Those who live in ghettos are at the mercy of the messianic State.They become willing to render everything to Caesar
while they wait for the return of Jesus
The inheritance of the ages is incapable of being passed down by Christians

 

"From a divine standpoint this was anticipated in the plan of God but from a human standpoint it was a postponement of the promise of the possession of the land."

What does it attribute to God?

Where do you as you seem to believe see the Parenthesis church in all this being a doctrine?

 

The last part of the Apostasy of the church is seen by Christ. He stated in Revelation 3:
14 "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see."

That describes most churches in our current time. How many folks are flocking to churches who have pastors who say Jesus isn't the only way to get to heaven. Or to churches which state that if you are good God will take you to heaven. How many are riding the fence and are therefore lukewarm, that is the church of today and we are in the final stages of apostasy for the church. There is a remnant that is true but look around at the churches of today and those who are on fire are few and far between. Those which are cold aren't seen but lukewarm that have lots of bodies and very little sound doctrine are abundant.

So everyone tell us is this time we live a lukewarm period or is the church reaching people more and more each day is it on fire or lukewarm?

 

Yes I used to learn and read these men. I taught this position before I was challenged to reevaluate what I was told was truth.:thumbs::thumbs:

I suppose I thought God would be manifesting His power visibly as He did in the OT.It took awhile to learn the system so I never questioned it to much.

 

That is because you were gullible and swallowed hook, line and sinker every thing you read, not bothering to read the scriptures instead. As you and OR have posted inconsistencies among varying authors, and especially inconsistencies between them and what many of us believe, you can see that not every one believes the same. We take our convictions from the Word of God. I trust that you believe in the distinctive of soul liberty and not "follow the leader." It seems you believe in the latter principle because you and OR keep quoting "authorities" thinking we believe the authorities you quote instead of debating us. That holds more true of OR, than of you.

Your frustration with differing dispensationalists no doubt led you to throw out the baby with bath water. Too bad.

Now you are confused because you don't know which part of the Bible is allegorical and which is not. Or is it just random guessing. Which scholar is right and which is wrong? Who do you follow now? Which fad is it? Amil, post-mil, Preterism, Partial-Preterism,
It must confuse you greatly in reading a book like that of John MacArthur who is staunchly Calvinistic, Covenantal in his theology, and yet at the same time believes in the rapture, is pre-tribulational, and takes the Bible very literal. He is a dispensationalist in every sense of the word.

But quote your authorities. I study God's Word, and that is where my beliefs come from.

 

Look again how the portion you posted concluded:

"From a divine standpoint this was anticipated in the plan of God but from a human standpoint it was a postponement of the promise of the possession of the land."

What does it attribute to God?

Where do you as you seem to believe the Parenthesis church in all this being a doctrine?

He clearly states the church was anticipated and in God's plan all along. Man sees the gap and questions.

 

Evidently something in here got under OR's skin. Not sure maybe the Holy Spirit convicting him that his position on what was said is now being challenged. Anyone else catch what he seems to think is pathetic?

 

DHK

I have forgotten more scripture than you will ever know. The difference is you are not smart enough or honest enough to know when your view has been trashed. AA. corrects you and you deny it because you have an unteachable proud spirit. For you to suggest I am gullible is only because you cannot grasp the other views to begin with, much less interact with them.

Is this supposed to be a news flash? Of course everyone does not believe the same.

Every pompous windbag under the sun makes this claim. What you offer from scripture is weak compared to any of the men quoted by OR. or myself.

OR has been very careful and accurate with his posting even though you do not like it. You cannot rewrite history. If you hold the position you hold try and not run away from it as you and revmac keep claiming ....we do not believe that, or teach this when in fact you do.:thumbs:

No...you still do not get it.It had nothing to do with differences among dispensationalists at all....there are always differences.

It has to do with the whole system being in error.It falls apart when anyone looks at it honestly. You refuse to look, that is why you are unteachable and resist truth on many areas of scripture.

I am not confused on that at all.
Unlike you I recognize that scripture uses many ways to communicate truth.
You force an extreme literalism that will not get it done.

I understand your frustration that you cannot grasp these concepts. I know why also. You have been offered truths or at least another way to view things but instead you mock and ridicule those who offer help.

This kind of idiotic statement shows your general lack of scholarship. These are not fads but historic views held by men in the churches for years unlike your novelties..

It does not confuse me at all.His mistake is his view of Israel. I would offer you some sermons on it but you are too pompous and proud to listen.

I still listen to JMac....not so much on his eschatology.

No need to lie...you have openly posted that you have several hundred theology books:thumbs:

 

Daniel 9:27 speaks for itself. You said: "The 'He' of Daniel 9:27 refers to Christ and not a Roman soldier." True or false?
Since you said such a ludicrous statement I showed you out of a variety of translations, some of which are much more clear than the KJV (which seems to confuse you), that the "he" is definitely not referring to Jesus Christ. Whatever you think of the CEV, a paraphrase yes, it translates it (or paraphrases "he") as "the horrible thing," which indeed the Antichrist is. He is not the Christ of the Bible, but the Antichrist of Revelation 13--a horrible beast. That is simply my evidence. The other translations support it. You inability to comprehend the KJV at this point is your mistake; your failure. Thus you draw the wrong conclusion and believe this person who is actually Satan, refers to Christ! Is it any wonder you are confused??

Again the "Darby" slur rises to the top of your unchanging debate tactics. This time, however, you apply it to Dr. John MacArthur, implying that he doesn't know any better but to blindly follow Darby and not to study things out for himself. Of course, that is what you think of all of us, even though we all repeatedly tell you otherwise.

 

And who is the unteachable arrogant one??

If you know this why do you quote some so-called authority on dispensationalism and then infer that because this is dispensationalism this is what you believe. (OR has done this repeatedly for months if not longer).

The difference: I use the Bible. But when you are asked a question I often get a quote from a C of F or some other document, instead of from you.

You just did what you said you didn't. No consistency with you is there?
"Of course everyone doesn't believe the same," you admit.
But now, you try to force certain teachings down our throats which we tell you we don't believe. Hypocritical inconsistencies!

Unteachable arrogance, you say?
Do you believe in dispensations? Did Paul use the word?
Was there a fall? A flood?
Was Moses given the Law? Did Israel live under the law?
Are there periods of time where God spoke to individuals differently than he speaks to us now? Does not the Bible say that?

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 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;
--God, in different times and in different ways spoke in time past or in various dispensations.

Extreme?
If the Bible doesn't warrant or ask for spiritualism then none should be given it. It isn't a science fiction book like you make it out to be.

Help in what? I understand the Bible perfectly well.

It shows the confusion of those outside of dispensationalism. For the most part they don't really know what to believe, and if you read carefully they express it on this board.

You really think that is his mistake. Then what is yours??

I do have a large library. I don't feel the need of quoting someone every time I am asked a question. I know my Bible well enough to answer a question without resorting to a CoF.

 

DHK

It is you just as I posted.The fact that I look at what others teach and re-examine what I hold shows that. The fact that I looked at this view critically and left it shows that also. If we met in person with just our bibles I would have no trouble dealing with what you offer....so all your cute remarks about me being gullible, guessing,being a heretic like Origen or any of these other quotes of yours just demonstrate you are devoid of truth.

Again....I know the view . I am not afraid to examine critically any teaching of scripture. I do not even agree with the author on several of his views....but I do not have to. I just look at what he offers. You show zero ability to do this, so you are critical of everyone of us that takes a look.

OR. has simply given the historic accepted view. I still have the books and my dispensational charts.
For you to attempt to deny the history indicates that you know it is not defensible. You told OR. he was mistaken. He was not.

You and revmac either do not know your own position and it's roots, or as the responses come you move the target when it comes under attack.

Skan did that on here for years and when it came time to face Dr. White he hid like an ostritch rather than show he was not quite up to it scripturally.

My quotes are not unique and I use scripture when needed. When I quote a source, the 1689, or the Catechism.....it contains more scripture than you offer in any thread, and in fact you cannot answer to the links so you ridicule it.
I offer scripture to several others who want to learn. You do not so why go out of my way?

No...wrong again. You are just not honest enough to admit when you are caught in a double standard...I gave you an example with the parenthesis...you claim that is not the teaching ,and yet you claim Israel is put on the shelf?? You change the term but repeat the teaching.

Every single time I hear a Dispy sermon on the radio...it is the historic view OR.posted....David Jeremiah, j mac, or anyone else....

Many have said it to you. You have shown this on a daily basis.

There is a difference between the biblical term dispensations......and the teaching called dispensationalism.

sure he did.....and while you get excited to see the word in eph 3:2....you completely miss the whole point that he teaches about the nations, the gentiles in the rest of the chapter........You deny that the nations along with the elect remnant are the Christian Israel In Christ.

sure as part of redemptive history...nothing unique about it.

yeah...so what. We are still under law to Christ . We are not lawless. Oh I forgot, you think Hebrews 8 is not for Christians...the law being in our heart..correct???? I do not want to force this down your throat but I remember you deny this reality for Christians.

you add to the text because you do not understand the text at all...It is not speaking of that primarily....It is showing Jesus as The full Final Prophet

GOD HAS SPOKEN IN SON.....

1 In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets,

2 in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;

Your unbelief does not make everyone else who studies scripture not see Spiritual truths that are Spiritually discerned.

:laugh: take a poll on that here on BB:thumbs:

Only in your mind my friend as many of us have been there and done that and have the tee shirt.

Your lack of basic knowledge is caused in part by not knowing the basics of a solid confession of faith.