The Messianic Kingdom?

[revmwc]

From the OP:



No one seems to want to address the comments by Walvoord above which I believe question the deity of Jesus Christ!

BTW I addressed it by posting what followed those comments.

 

[DHK]

Let's look at this ridiculous quote again Icon:

22 RAPTUREFEVER
Jesus. As Walvoord insisted, "a parenthesis of time involving the
whole present age is indicated."7 That is to say, from the crucifixion of Christ to the Rapture, the clock of prophecy cannot tick, let
alone tock. This means that not a single Bible prophecy can be
fulfilled during this gap,which dispensationalists call" the parenthesis" and the"Church Age."(Non-dispensational theology
insists that the entire New Testament period is the Church's
age. The doctrine of the Church Age is one of the central pillars of dispensational principles of Bible interpretation- perhaps the centralpilla

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.

 

[OldRegular]

We don't cherry pick it like you do. You zoom in on one thing said but the balance explained the position and you just start name calling.

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.

Yes but Walvoord leaves the impression that Jesus Christ did not know as I stated in my OP!

John F. Walvoord was one of the leading scholars of pre-trig-dispensational doctrine. He served as professor of systematic theology and president of the Dallas Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1986. Following are some remarks by Walvoord on the offer of the Kingdom and its rejection taken from his book Major Bible Prophecies, pages 206ff.! I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain parts.



There are two statements in Walvoord's remarks that are troubling:

1. With this background of rejection, Jesus recognized that the kingdom He was offering would not be fulfilled soon but would come about at his second coming.

2. In a similar way the Israelites’ widespread unbelief at this point in the life of Christ changed his message from one of offering the kingdom to one of contemplating what would result in view of Israel’s rejection of him.

It seems that in both of these statements Walvoord is implying that the rejection of the supposed offer of the kingdom comes as a surprise to Jesus Christ. If that is what he means he is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ!

Your post#16 is still a disgusting example of the devious means dispensationalists use in an attempt to discuss Scripture!

 

[OldRegular]

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/rapture_fever.pdf

Icon, found the following by dispensationalist Dr. Harry Ironside you might find interesting:

The seventy weeks are divided into three unequal periods. The first is seven weeks, or forty-nine years. The second is sixty-two weeks, or 434 years. The third is one week, or seven years. During the first seven weeks, or "the strait times", the city and wall of Jerusalem were to be rebuilt. The date from which to count is found in Nehemiah 2, when a "commandment went forth to restore and build Jerusalem." The sixty-two weeks seem to have immediately followed, and ended in the coming of Messiah. After the conclusion of this period He was cut off and had nothing, but atonement was made. Then comes the present long interval of Jerusalem's treading down. The city is destroyed, as our Lord foretold also, and "even unto the end shall be war," until one arises who confirms a covenant with the Jews for the last final week. Clearly, then, this week is still future. The prophetic clock stopped at Calvary; it will not start again until "the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

http://jesus-is-savior.com/BTP/Dr_Harry_Ironside/not_wrath_but_rapture.htm

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Let's look at this ridiculous quote again Icon:

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

It really is a smear isn't it?

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.

No dispensationalist believes what I just bolded for you.

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???

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.

you know he means in reference to Israel specifically.

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.

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:

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is why many have moved away from this view;

Pessimillennialists self-consciously preach the progressive future failure of the gospel and therefore the inability or unwillingness of the Holy Spirit to transform the world positively in terms of kingdom standards.

Dave Hunt goes so far as to say that God Himself is incapable of establishing His kingdom on
earth:"Infact, dominion- taking dominion and setting up the kingdom for Christ- is an impossibility, even for God.

The millennial reign of Christ, far from being the kingdom,is actually the final proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart,
because Christ Himself can't do what these people say they are doing .
Whether premillennialist scholars like it·or not,DaveHunt
has become the spokesman for premillennial social philosophy
in this decade. He is the best-selling premillennialist author.
Silence by premillennialist leaders regarding Hunt's books and
his kingdom-denying conclusion is an admission that he in fact
speaks for premillennialism today.

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

 

[OldRegular]

Icon,

The entire concept of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church, in my opinion, has always implied the failure of the Church even though Jesus Christ Himself said: 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 16:18}

 

[revmwc]

Yes but Walvoord leaves the impression that Jesus Christ did not know as I stated in my OP!



Your post#16 is still a disgusting example of the devious means dispensationalists use in an attempt to discuss Scripture!

"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?

 

[revmwc]

Icon,

The entire concept of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church, in my opinion, has always implied the failure of the Church even though Jesus Christ Himself said: 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 16:18}

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, found the following by dispensationalist Dr. Harry Ironside you might find interesting:

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:

Icon,

The entire concept of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church, in my opinion, has always implied the failure of the Church even though Jesus Christ Himself said: 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 16:18}

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.

 

[DHK]

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:

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

Debating you is impossible because you pull sick, slick tricks liked you did with the CEV paraphrase of Daniel 9:27 to make it look like I was claiming Jesus Christ was; well you said it this way: From {http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2226313#post2226313}

That makes Christ a sinner. Horrible theology.

and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate.
In another translation:
CEV Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there.
ESV And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate
LITV And on a corner of the altar will be abominations that desolate, even until the end.
--This is not Christ as you say. "He" is called "The Horrible Thing." He causes destruction, the altar in the temple to be desecrated. This is the way that you describe our Lord Jesus Christ!!

Jesus Christ is not called "the Horrible Thing," the one who makes things desolate, the one who causes the Temple to be an abomination. This is blasphemy.

That is the same type of slimy stunt 'revmwc' tried to pull in post #16!

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.

The pre-trib-dispensationalism invented by John Nelson Darby and popularized in this country by Cyrus Scofield is the faddish doctrine but it is dying the death because it is not Biblical!

 

[revmwc]

Debating you is impossible because you pull sick, slick tricks liked you did with the CEV paraphrase of Daniel 9:27 to make it look like I was claiming Jesus Christ was; well you said it this way: From {http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2226313#post2226313}


That is the same type of slimy stunt 'revmwc' tried to pull in post #16!




The pre-trib-dispensationalism invented by John Nelson Darby and popularized in this country by Cyrus Scofield is the faddish doctrine but it is dying the death because it is not Biblical!

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.

 

[revmwc]

You seem to have Conveniently left out some important portions of this to try and sway what was said to your belief of Darbyism as you have called it.



As most of the Depensational pre-trib camp have stated over and over "On the divine side this was no change of plan." God always intended for the Gentile and Jew alike to be saved. He foreknew from Eternity past that the Nation Israel as a whole "rejected as God had anticipated[/COLOR], and ultimately this rejection would lead to the cross of Christ, which was part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world."

Thereby God's plan always was for the church age the Dispensation of Grace as Paul called it to occur. God offers salvation to each and every individual many reject so great a salvation, guess what God knows who will and who will not receive Christ, Romans 8:29-30,
29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."


Just as He foreknew Israel as a nation would reject Christ. Why because Jesus had to die in order to become the Propitiation for the sins of mankind.
He even allowed Daniel to prophesy that "Messiah would be cutoff" Daniel 9:26 "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

No matter how you trice to slice and dice the point Walvoord and the others were making is that God's plan involved His foreknowledge and by that Foreknowledge God and Christ knew Israel would reject Christ and the promised Kingdom, just as they rejected God's plan in the wilderness. God foreknew and therefore had planned for another period of time to occur after the rejection of Christ. God also planned for His wrath to be reigned down upon those who rejected Him in the forrm of the Tribulation, but the overcomers would not be subject to that wrath thus the Snatching Away of the Bride prior to the 7 years of tribulation. Then the PROMISED KINGDOM would come, why because God made a Covenant with Israel that He would establish a Kingdom in which Messiah would reign. It must come and God still has it planned. O.T. prophecy must be fulfilled for two reasons. First if it is not literally fulfilled that would make Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zecariah and others false prophets and all their prophecy must be reject even the ones that were literally fulfilled at the first advent. Second the Kingdom must come literally because God made a Promise and Covenant with Israel for that Kingdom to come a literal earthly Kingdom. Nothing you show from any of these men's writings says anything different.

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

That is because you were gullible and swallowed hook, line and sinker every thing you read, not bothering to read the scriptures instead.

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.

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.

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

We take our convictions from the Word of God.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

Now you are confused because you don't know which part of the Bible is allegorical and which is not.

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.

Or is it just random guessing.

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.

Which scholar is right and which is wrong? Who do you follow now? Which fad is it? Amil, post-mil, Preterism, Partial-Preterism,

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 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.

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.

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

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

 

[DHK]

Debating you is impossible because you pull sick, slick tricks liked you did with the CEV paraphrase of Daniel 9:27 to make it look like I was claiming Jesus Christ was; well you said it this way: From {http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2226313#post2226313}

That is the same type of slimy stunt 'revmwc' tried to pull in post #16!

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??

The pre-trib-dispensationalism invented by John Nelson Darby and popularized in this country by Cyrus Scofield is the faddish doctrine but it is dying the death because it is not Biblical!

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.

 

[DHK]

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.

And who is the unteachable arrogant one??

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

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).

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.

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.

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:

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Help in what? I understand the Bible perfectly well.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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?

Your lying in your post #16 about the OP is what is pathetic. I showed you were a liar in my post #18 which I repeat for the edification of those interested in the truth!

Originally Posted by revmwc
You seem to have Conveniently left out some important portions of this to try and sway what was said to your belief of Darbyism as you have called it.

It must be understood that what is postponed from a human standpoint is not postponed from the divine standpoint. With God all contingencies and seeming changes of direction are known from eternity past, and there is no change in God’s central purpose.

Jesus had been offering the kingdom in the form of offering himself as the Messiah and King of Israel. This offering had been rejected as God had anticipated, and ultimately this rejection would lead to the cross of Christ, which was part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world. On the divine side this was no change of plan, but on the human side it was a change of direction regarding fulfillment of the kingdom promise. A comparison can be in the experience of Israel at Kadesh-Barnea when the children of Israel were contemplating entering the Promised Land. When the spies reported that there were giants in the land, and ten of the twelve said the land could not be conquered, the unbelief of Israel resulted in Israel’s wandering in the wilderness for forty years {Numbers 13:26-14:25} 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

The dishonesty of you Darbyites is incredible:

From the OP:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
John F. Walvoord was one of the leading scholars of pre-trig-dispensational doctrine. He served as professor of systematic theology and president of the Dallas Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1986. Following are some remarks by Walvoord on the offer of the Kingdom and its rejection taken from his book Major Bible Prophecies, pages 206ff.! I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain parts.

After Jesus was rebuked by the Pharisees because the disciples' ate grain gathered on the Sabbath, Jesus deliberately healed others on the Sabbath, but he warned the people of Israel that the prophecy of Isaiah 42:1-4 concerning their hardness of heart and incapacity to receive the truth was being fulfilled. This was followed by the Pharisees' blaspheming the Holy Spirit by saying that Jesus' miracles were of Satan. Jesus declared that this was the unpardonable sin. His concluding word was that the sign of the prophet Jonah was to be fulfilled by Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Matthew 12:38-41).

With this background of rejection, Jesus recognized that the kingdom He was offering would not be fulfilled soon but would come about at his second coming. This is the theme of Matthew 13.

There has been much resistance to the idea that the kingdom was postponed. It must be understood that what is postponed from a human standpoint is not postponed from the divine standpoint. With God all contingencies and seeming changes of direction are known from eternity past, and there is no change in God’s central purpose.

Jesus had been offering the kingdom in the form of offering himself as the Messiah and King of Israel. This offering had been rejected as God had anticipated, and ultimately this rejection would lead to the cross of Christ, which was part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world. On the divine side this was no change of plan, but on the human side it was a change of direction regarding fulfillment of the kingdom promise. A comparison can be in the experience of Israel at Kadesh-Barnea when the children of Israel were contemplating entering the Promised Land. When the spies reported that there were giants in the land, and ten of the twelve said the land could not be conquered, the unbelief of Israel resulted in Israel’s wandering in the wilderness for forty years {Numbers 13:26-14:25} 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.

In a similar way the Israelites’ widespread unbelief at this point in the life of Christ changed his message from one of offering the kingdom to one of contemplating what would result in view of Israel’s rejection of him. In keeping with this Matthew 13 reveals the character of the present age between the first and second comings of Christ. This is done by revealing aspects of the mystery of the kingdom.

revmwc, You are beyond pathetic!

 

[OldRegular]

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?

I did and the HE is Jesus Christ. And I am not alone in that belief. However, you hunt up a sleazy paraphrase, the CEV, which renders Daniel 9:27 as follows:

Daniel 9:27 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
27 For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the “Horrible Thing” that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.

Now consider how this verse is rendered in legitimate translations:

Daniel 9:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27 American Standard Version (ASV)
27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27 New King James Version (NKJV)
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.”

Daniel 9:27 English Standard Version (ESV)
27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

Daniel 9:27 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

Daniel 9:27 World English Bible (WEB)
27 He shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the middle of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate; and even to the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out on the desolate.

Now where do the people who wrote the CEV get the word "foreigner"? Where do they find the name "Horrible Thing"? Out of the pit of hell or the mind of Satan I suspect. There is no other explanation! It was sick of you to use that blasphemous rendering to slime me! Darby's translation does not blaspheme like the CEV but is consistent with all the others.

Daniel 9:27Darby Translation (DARBY)
27 And he shall confirm a covenant with the many [for] one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and because of the protection of abominations [there shall be] a desolator, even until that the consumption and what is determined shall be poured out upon the desolate.

Daniel 9:27 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
27 And he {a} shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to {b} cease, {c} and for the overspreading of the abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Footnotes to 1599 Geneva Bible:

{a} Daniel 9:27. By the preaching of the Gospel he confirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

{b} Daniel 9:27. Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

{c} Daniel 9:27. Meaning, that Jerusalem and the Sanctuary should be utterly destroyed for their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague shall be so great, that they shall be all astonied at them.

{I include the notes from the1599 Geneva Bible because they confirm my understanding of Daniel 9:27.}

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

And who is the unteachable arrogant one??

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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!

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....

Unteachable arrogance, you say?

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

Do you believe in dispensations?

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

Did Paul use the word?

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.

Was there a fall? A flood?

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

Was Moses given the Law? Did Israel live under the law?

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.

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.

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;

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.

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

Help in what? I understand the Bible perfectly well.

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

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.

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

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.

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