Featured In which "Millennial Camp" was ....

That is not entirely correct, in that it denies Israel's part in the Tree. The Tree is the provision of God and the branches are the People of Israel:


Romans 11:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.


The Tree is still there, and the Root is still there.

The Tree has not changed, it is the provision of God and Israel is specifically called the branches that were produced. It is National, not individual. That context is borne out through chs.9-11.

No, the Tree is not the Household of faith, my friend.

You are suggesting that members of the Household of Faith were...

...cut out.

You need to give this a little more thought.

I would agree with that, for Christ is the provision of God in terms of redemption, which is a prominent issue in regards to Israel on a National basis.

And it is to National Israel that the Promises were made, and the Lord does not renege on His promises, but has always fulfilled every promise, and always will.

That is correct.

So again, how do you confuse those that were cut out for unbelief, who we are told rejected Christ (He came unto His Own and His Own received Him not)...

...with the Household of Faith? Do you see the problem you have created for yourself?

And the relevance, my friend, is that the Law, though which Israel was brought into relationship with...does not nullify the Promises of God.

The Promises of God beginning in the Garden and continuing into the New Testament all work together in harmony to arrive at the same conclusion, which is a People of God set apart unto God.

Israel is a picture of what those promises would yield, and without Question they were the temporal People of God. Among those were those of faith. There has always been a remnant, but that did not disannul God's promises to National Israel.

And we are still waiting for those promises to be fulfilled in the Children of Promise.

Sorry, no. You need to get this corrected soon, as it is completely contradictory to what Scripture teaches:



Galatians 3:27-29

King James Version (KJV)

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


This is a fundamental blunder of great magnitude. It completely misses the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is contrasted to, yep, you guessed it...National Israel, who was in a state of destruction, just as all men were, when Christ came.

It is not a proof-text to replace Israel with Gentiles on a salvific and eternal basis.

That is true, but that is not relevant to the issue at hand, and it does not disannul the fact that the Just of both the Law as well as prior to the Law are equal on an eternal level. When God established the New Covenant the Just of those economies were then made perfect.

They did not receive the promises until Christ came.

And this is on a spiritual perspective which they were not privy to, which is actually the framework a-millennialism tries to build from.

You destroy it in thinking that Gentiles replace Israel, and deny many passages of Scripture that make it clear that the Just of both Jews and Gentiles have always been people of faith. That was true in the Old Testament, it is true in the New Testament.

I would suggest getting the above error straightened out first.

It is clear you are not familiar with the purpose of the Law, so familiarizing yourself with some basic truths might help.


Galatians 3:23-25

King James Version (KJV)

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


Paul distinguishes between the faith of the Old Testament Saint and those under Law with the Faith of Jesus Christ.

But he also makes clear that the Law was meant to bring men to Christ. The writer of Hebrews speaks of the Hebrew Scriptures as the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, or put in another manner, the ABCs of the Knowledge of Christ.

Now that Christ has come...Faith has come.

And until you understand that truth you will confuse the temporal and the eternal, the physical with the spiritual. You will equate them and in so ding diminish that which God has accomplished in the lives of men in regards to Redemption.

The Writer calls it parable, a picture and shadow of the True, which was only fulfilled through Christ. That parable, picture, and shadow was incomplete, and did not produce life.

However, that parable was real, and brought temporal and temporary atonement, and was the prescribed Covenant meant to bring Israel, not the world, into relationship with God.

The true significance of the Tabernacle made with hands is that it was the place where Man could come into the presence of God. But just one man, the High Priest, who was a picture of our Great High Priest. And our Great High Priest did not enter into that Tabernacle, but into the true:


Hebrews 9

King James Version (KJV)


6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;


That earthly High Priest went into the Holy of Holies to make an offering for sin on the behalf of Israel, not the world.

But Christ...


13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

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.


...offered up a Sacrifice in a Tabernacle not made with hands for the purpose of redeeming the transgressions which had only been temporally and temporarily atoned for through the earthly, and He entered into...


24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


This is what that earthly Tabernacle, as well as the Temple...represented.

The presence of God was not possible for men prior to the Sacrifice of Christ, but He has opened up that way...


Hebrews 10:19-20

King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Hope that helps.


God bless.

 

As long as you try to proof-text your position without discernible balance, but merging and blending concepts given in Scripture, you will always be able to maintain your view.

The Lord's point here is one that is actually individual, and demands belief, and a proper response to the revelation God has provided. Israel was disobedient to the provision of God, hence she has been blinded, in part, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.

While we might apply this to the destruction Israel has suffered, we do not forget that she was already in a state of destruction, and it is this state which the Lord promised to remedy for them in promising a New Covenant.

That has not happened yet for National Israel. But it will.

Again, we see Israel protected in the Tribulation, and while we might see some form of protection in the First Century events, there remains a fulfillment to the Promises of God. Antichrist will seek to exterminate Israel, and God will once again give provision for her.

And that is all the time I have today, thanks for the responses.


God bless.

 

DHK

Everyone here...at least most read and study their bibles.
Saying this as if only you do this is misguided. You have posted that you have thousands of books......so why did you buy them? Are they just to decorate the study?
If you are trying to say that you came up with dispensational ideas all on your own without study books or a Scofield bible, or some teacher teaching you the system.....I will book you for an appearance on the Maury Povich show where they do a lie detector test on the guests, then read the results....

you said this.....that is a lie!

Again....these men are considered to have taught the classic view on these teachings.....I have read them, OR has most likely read them as well as many on here.
So how in the world can you suggest to him he is wrong when for a fact he quotes those who are considered authorities on the teaching???:wavey:
If you want to deny being a "dispensationalist to avoid having to defend the position....then do not say you are a dispensationalist...that is simple enough.

If I say I am a Calvinist, but then deny election, and particular redemption ...my statement would be quite suspect don't you think??...

That is what you are doing here...

Again.....if you do not want to own the teaching...then come out and just deny it outright.

This also is trying to deny what you claim is the truth.

If it is as you say then you have worked your way into a novelty position so this discussion should not concern you then, as OR's comments are directed at the classic position. Maybe you never learned it properly....that is quite possible. Perhaps you should dust off some of those books and refresh your failing memory:wavey:

This is not the question is it ! I did not ask what Israel is doing.

I asked what is God doing with Israel.....answer that question:thumbs:

I did ask for random facts...I asked you this specific question:thumbs:

 

Some time ago I purchased a set of the "World Book Encyclopedia," (24 volumes), and still have not read through them. I have many different dictionaries and encyclopedias, and still have not read them. I have Greek lexicons and have not read them. I have not read through the scores of commentaries all the way through that I have, commentaries like the Pulpit Commentary (another 24 volumes). No, I have not read all the books in my library. They are there for my reference and study when I need them.
The average university library has hundreds of thousands of books, perhaps up to a million or more. Do you think the librarian has read them all? :laugh:

IOW, you deny that people are unable to think for themselves. Sad!

Now begin the ad hominems. I hope other moderators see this.

As I have said plenty of times, just because they believe a certain view on dispensationalism doesn't mean I believe it, neither does it mean that others believe it. Others have told you the same thing.
You and OR have the same problems:
--a failure to communicate with others.
--a failure to believe what others tell you about their own belief system.
--a desire to box everyone into the exact same system of belief.
It doesn't work that way. If you are not willing to listen what is the purpose of debate?

Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist. Did he agree with Ryrie on everything?
I think you know the answer to that. Not all of us have the same set of beliefs, and are still dispensationalists.
It is obvious that MacArthur and I disagree on many things for he is a Calvinist. And yet he is a dispensationalist. How then can we be in agreement on many things. And yet you expect us to be. Can't you see the irony of your position, and the contradictions therein?

I know that there is disagreement among Calvinists and you do too.
That is why there is supralapsinarianism and infralapsinarianism. You can't be both at the same time.

I do deny it. There is no such thing as a "universal church." If you don't like it then I can't help you.

I don't know what you are talking about.
"There are churches," not "the Church" (an RCC teaching).
"Ecclesia" can only mean "local church," as the word properly translated means assembly or congregation, never universal church which is a contradiction in terms. Because I take a scriptural view, you say I deny scripture? What is that all about??

My position is biblical. I told you I study my Bible not the works of other people. But since you refuse to debate me you have no clue as to what I believe. You simply want to debate a book, not me. That is pitiful. You want to debate "the classical position." Too bad! I don't take the "classical position!" So if you want honest debate you must debate me and not a book. Those are the terms.

And I answered.
If Jews from every part of the world are coming back to their homeland, Israel, then it is God that is bringing them back. I answered your questions, just worded them differently than you wanted me to. Think about the answers and figure it out.

 

DHK

I did not say that....
here is what I said....

The other moderators can read and understand what they read....

You deny this that I actually asked you?????
If you are trying to say that you came up with dispensational ideas all on your own without study books or a Scofield bible, or some teacher teaching you the system.....

Are you saying you came up with the dispensational system without hearing it taught to you by anyone????

Like Al Gore said he invented the internet:laugh:

You never answered this direct question.....I know why you did not:laugh:

Go ahead and answer the question:thumbs:

.

If OR.or anyone else quotes accurately the history...in fact I will google it right now..let's just see what happens...will I get what I and OR said or what you say?????

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
here is what comes up;
Dispensationalism is a Christian evangelical, futurist, Biblical interpretation that believes that God has related to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants in a series of "dispensations," or periods in history.

As a system, dispensationalism is expounded in the writings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) and the Plymouth Brethren movement,[1]:10 and propagated through works such as Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible. The theology of dispensationalism consists of a distinctive eschatological end times perspective, as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism and most hold to a pretribulation rapture. Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church,[2]:322 and that God has yet to fulfill his promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future world to come result in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem[3] for a thousand years. In other areas of theology, dispensationalists hold to a wide range of beliefs within the evangelical and fundamentalist spectrum.[1]:13

With the rise of dispensationalism, some Protestants, where the dispensationalist view is particularly salient, came to interpret elements of the Book of Revelation not as an account of past events (with specific reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, a position known as Preterism), but as predictions of the future.[4][5][6]


I notice that they do not say what you say:laugh:
in fact when OR said this same thing and I agreed with him you gave us both "infractions"
maybe the other moderators already saw that.
maybe they saw you accuse him of being obsessed with Darby...when he was 100% correct.

I get OR's posts and agree most every time...the only problem we have is YOU trying to twist our words like when you say we are landmarkers, or Mormons, or something else...we want you to stop doing that.

I do not see anyone other than you say that OR does not communicate with them...they all get what he says.
Some do not like what I post...that is fine, they are free to disagree, but they know what I say as they know what they do not agree with me on.

we understand what they say..if and when they offer it....
several people do not really say what they actually believe.

we do not have to...their posts identify them

The only way a debate works is if the people are honest and truthful , sometimes that is lacking here ...bigtime.
issac watts never read Ryrie....he was in the eternal state before Ryrie was born...

cals agree on the 5 pts.....across the board...no 5 pts/no cal

.

everyone says this

I have seen much of what you believe...and it would help you to look at the books of other men...for sure.

You want to hide, not discuss or debate. When people zero in on you ...you claim...I do not hold to that....or some other excuse. that is why most people avoid you.

I do not need to...I used to hold it...I know what it is. I held the same thing as John M.

You hold to much more serious error for me to debate a secondary issue with you

not really...you know the answer gives you away....lol

Is God going to save multitudes of Israelites before the rapture???? According to "your view"

I bet REVMAC knows the answer...lol

 

Yes, that is indeed what you said. You mentioned Scofield, and referenced others, inferring the other references that OR so often refers to. No, I haven't read all of those. No, I didn't get my theology from their books. Yet, you call me a liar when I tell you the truth. Why does it amaze you when I tell you I haven't read Chafer and Ryrie, et. al. Why do you say I am lying, without any proof?
Calling one a liar is also against the rules--just adding to the ad hominems that you are piling up.

Indeed they will.

Same old; same old. Since you don't know what I have read; how I was taught; where I got my information, etc. You should keep quiet about it and stop making assumptions. The Bible is a good source book. You might want to use it.

More ad hominems. You don't know when to stop. When will you stop with the insults and actually start debating.

I can't ask a question not posed What question?

He isn't 100% right; he is 100% wrong. Wiki isn't the most accurate source of information. Many posters on this board have given both of you many sources of information that date dispensationalism back to the ECF. Why don't you believe them?
Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist.
Spurgeon was a dispensationalist.
Over and over again you have completely dismissed such staggering evidence as this when it is set before you:

I suggest you read the entire article. It is found here:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/BlueDISP.html

I notice you just twisted my words. Be honest and admit it. A reference to another religion as a comparison is not wrong. But be offended anyway.

I understand what he says too. I perfectly understand what he says. His argument is with a book, not with me. I don't believe what his book believes. He needs to debate me, not someone else's book. If the author of the book is on the board (Charles Ryrie), let him find Ryrie, and debate him. I am not Ryrie, and I have my own beliefs. Deal with it. Neither am I Chafer, Scofield, Darby, etc. Address my beliefs and only my beliefs. That is what debate is.

You ignore what people say, especially what I say.
If I tell you I don't believe in the parenthesis of the church, you keep telling me I do, without even asking why or bothering to have a discussion about it. You just assume it is part of "the package." You are wrong. There is no attempt to debate, only an assumption that it is "my belief" no matter how many times I tell you it isn't. Search the threads and see how many times I have denied this.

Just plain wrong and very arrogant!
It is like saying that every non-cal is an Arminian. That is the assumption.
It is a wrong assumption. But that is your box, and those are the terms you need to think in.

We have the works of Ryrie and Watts, so your point is moot.
Being honest and truthful requires the ability to first listen or read and understand what a person is saying.

I would agree with that, but not everyone does.

I do. But not the ones that you recommend.

Again you avoided what I said. You and OR want to debate a book like Chafer, and not me. Because I don't hold to Classic Dispensationalism you become frustrated. You don't want to find out what I believe. You throw the same old Classic Dispy beliefs at me (which I don't believe), without bothering to find out what I do believe. No wonder people become frustrated.
That is not the way debate is supposed to go. Listen to a person's view and then answer it.

But I don't. So listen to my position instead of assuming it is someone else's.

More ad hominems. You can't stop, can you.

No. The nation of Israel will turn to him (as a nation) near the end of the Tribulation.

 

How was Abraham justified? Faith. Of whom is he the father? The faithful. It is that simple.

The tree is the Israel of God. Who are the Israel of God? Those who are children of Abraham by faith. Who is cut off? The unbelievers? Who is grafted in? The believers.

Don't read too much arboriculture into it. Otherwise you'll be saying the branches cut from the Vine were abiding in Christ before they were cut off, and that it is possible for a believer to lose his salvation.

 

As every believer is. However, the object of our faith is not always the same due to the revelation we are given. The object of Abraham’s faith was Jehovah God. The object of our faith is Jesus Christ as revealed through the gospel. Belief in Jehovah alone cannot save (today).

No, it is not that simple. And that is not a true statement.
Of whom is Abraham the father?

He is the father of many people and many nations:
Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

He is the father of all the descendants of Keturah:
Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
--“Tribes in Sheba and Dedan, in Arabia (Gen_25:3), as well as the Midianites (Gen_25:4), came from Abraham. This was in fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham that he would become great (Gen_12:2) since so “many nations” look to him as their ancestor (Gen_17:4).” (Walvoord).

He is the father of Ishmael.
Gen_16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen_16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.
Gen_17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

Gen 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael, Nebajoth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,
Gen 25:14 And Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa,
Gen 25:15 Hadar, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah:
Gen 25:16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.
Gen 25:17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, an hundred and thirty and seven years: and he gave up the ghost and died; and was gathered unto his people.

Ishmael had 12 sons and died a the age of 137, as the Lord said.
His sons lived primarily in Arabia and in fulfillment to scripture:
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
They live up to their description.

Through Abraham came Jacob and thus Esau which also came the Edomites.
Other descendants came from this union:
Gen 26:34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:

Needless to say Abraham had many descendants. The promise to Abraham was that he would be a father of many nations, and he was.

You seem very confused; even your grammar is confusing.

Rom 11:16-18
(16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
(17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
(18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

The root refers to Abraham and the patriarchs upon which Israel is built.
The branches are the rest of the nation of Israel.
If some of the branches are broken off (He already made the point that not all Israel is Israel), that is not all in the nation are true believers, then you (believers in Rome), being Gentile believers or a wild tree, were grafted in among the other branches, and thus partake of the life of the tree via the root.
Don’t boast against the branches. Israel still lives. You do not support the root, but the root supports you. Paul gives enough warning here to the anti-semitic people as if there are some arrogant ones among them that might not be saved. The nation of Israel is the foundation of Christianity. Salvation is of the Jews, Jesus said. However the “Church” is entirely separate from Israel. It is connected only by faith, related simply by faith. Israel is still here and separate from NT believers.

 

Holy freaking cow.

Who was the Rock that followed them in the Wilderness?

Holy freaking cow.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

You seem disobedient. The commandment from the Apostle is to "know that" Abraham is the father of the faithful, and you don't appear to know that. Worse, you seem hell-bent on denying it.

Holy freaking cow.

 

DHK

.

No it is not...here is what I said;
If you are trying to say that you came up with dispensational ideas all on your own
without study books
or a Scofield bible,
or some teacher teaching you the system.....

Are you saying that no one ever taught you this....You have quoted walvoord haven't you? You never heard a dispensational teacher....you never listened to John Macarthur??? You have never had a teacher in a bible school teach this teaching???? is that what you are saying????

You have never quoted any of these men???

They are well known...are you saying you have never seen a Scofield bible or heard someone teach from it? I could look at your bookshelf and not see a premillennial book ...is that your claim?

You have never seen a dispensational chart ....anywhere????

Yet you claim to know people all throughout church history who believe these things.....that is amazing:wavey:

Have you read any books {even if I did not guess the right name} that taught anything about dispensationalism and premillennialism.....you just read the bible right????

Since neither of those terms are found in any bible....you must be a prodigy!
you know these terms which are not in scripture...have over 2000 books and none of them are premill dispensational at all....really!

So this is your claim...you never read these terms or this teaching in any book???

.

No,,,,only when you are caught telling a lie. Only when you bear false witness.

So if we search your posts you have never quoted a premill person???

When I have called you a liar is when you have violated the 9th commandment and beared false witness....

I did not call anyone a liar...I said they use a lie detector on the Maury Povich show......they listen to the claims of a person...the person always denies they are guilty ...but the lie detector gets them....Maury says...you said thus and so, but the lie detector says...that was a lie!

You are trying to make a case that you arte the victim of ad hominem attacks, which is not true. factual statements about what a person teaches is not an attack against a person......it is being factual about the content of his teaching.
But I understand...you have been caught doing this to us....so now you are trying to project it on us as if we do what you do.....nice try, but the horse is already out of the barn. this cover up is too late.

They already have

;
You said this in post 41;

this indicates you have perhaps read them doesn't it???/You posted it !:thumbs:
You claim to have 2000 plus books....what were they on???? Yoga? how to bake cookies? Oh wait...you say they are only there for reference.....oic.

I asked you if you ever had a premill teacher who was taught from these sources...you never answered....yet you chide me that I should find out what you were taught??

Did you go to any bible school at all? Does your church have a website...post it:thumbs: I will look....

You have once again posted off topic which you tell us not to do...you have not yet addressed the OP...have you???

in post 19 you go off about the book of Hebrews...the OP is about which end time view did John Calvin hold to....

In post 23 more about Hebrews , nothing about John Calvins view...

in post 29 you falsely accuse OR of speaking about heresy when he did not use that term...nothing about the OP

in post 36...not a word about the OP...
in post 38...no mention of the OP.

in post 41 no mention of the OP

isn't this just cute? false witness again. then you say this here below

.

Speaking of ad hominem attacks here is another of your edifying posts......

I do not debate you because you are off topic....

So now you claim to have a unique view that only you have because you only read the bible.....but yet, you maybe have read other premill men , but forgot what you read as it was long ago???? Which is it DHK???

Tell us the mystery????

I am not looking to chase phantom views and novelties.....

there are many on here I do not agree with but they stand their ground...

Van stands by what he posts, Steaver stands by what he posts, they do not dance all around when responded to directly....

Try posting on the topic of the OP.

 

DHK SAID;

By the way...you claim you do not know what any of these men teach and yet you posted this to OR;

on 8-11 2014;

[QUOTEIf you are gong to take this seriously you will read the theology of Isaac Watts. Scofield's view of dispensationalism is more akin to Isaac Watts than it was to Darby's.][/QUOTE]

and again;

You still evade the question. We all admit that there dozens of different uses of the word eis. It is a very flexible pronoun. Your problem is that you want to confine it to what your theology restricts you to believe. As Ryrie point out in so many words--Context is everything. If the context of the verse says that your interpretation is going against the grain of the rest of the Bible then you have a problem. The problem, being that you are wrong. The heresy of baptismal regeneration is obviously not taught in the Scriptures. It takes some heavy duty twisting of Scripture to come up with that doctrine.

Stop acting like the typical J.W. and quckly going to another passage, another author, saying "But what about this?' Every cult uses those tactics.

Address the points the Ryrie brought up. What Scripture did he use and why? Why is "eis" used in some passages with the meaning of "on account of" when you say it cannot? You have failed to adress this question, and the Scripture assciated with it.
DHK [/QUOTE]

[There are many others that agree with me. Let me quote one for you.
Here is Walvoord....

How do you quote these men who you have never read???

 

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,[Jn 5:39]

Which scriptures were Jesus referring to, mon ami?

 

Luk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Luk 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

Relevance?

In order for this to be relevant you would have to make the Tree the source of faith.

The Tree is the Provision of God for the purpose of relationship with God.

Unless you want to say that "The Israel of God" is the root, and that root was holy.

But it is the provision which makes men holy, not the result.

Branches...are not trees.

How about Abel? Noah? Job?

Again...relevance?

In view is National Israel, and if you would but address the points raised you would be able to dispel the understanding that you have, primarily...God will renege on His promises to Israel, and that they are "gone forever."

Again, I ask the question: if the Tree is the "spiritual Israel," the "Israel of God," how is it that these faithful, these believers...

...are cut out due to unbelief?

Stop and think, Aaron.

Those who were cut out were unbelievers, and they were...in the Tree.

The Tree cannot be the Israel of God because you are saying...salvation can be lost.

Just that which is in Scripture:

The imagery of trees, vines, branches, and fruit is a consistent method of describing Israel, believers, and unbelievers.

You might want to get to know your antagonist before making charges, though I guess you do this due to an inability to address the points raised in my post.

That's okay, I forgive you.



Nothing I have said indicates or intimates loss of salvation, and your argument is actually contrary to your defense.

Here...


Psalm 80:8

King James Version (KJV)

8 Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.


...we have National Israel called a vine.

Now correlate that to the teaching of Christ:


John 15

King James Version (KJV)

1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.


The disciples would have known what He meant, now it is time for you to know as well.

The "Vine" is the Provision of God for relationship with God. National Israel was in relationship with God through the Covenant of Law. He took this people out of Egypt, brought them into relationship with Himself, and "planted" them in the land.

When Christ states He is the True Vine, that is contrasted with the provision they had formerly.

This was not understood to them at the time, but, there is no excuse for us not understanding it.

The branches "cut out" here are in the Vine, for they are of Israel. They are cut out due to unbelief, illustrated by the imagery of a branch that does not bear fruit, which, as we see throughout Christ's teaching, is a picture of unbelief.


God bless.

 

DHK is correct, they did not place faith in Christ, which is required to be born again believers in this Age.

They had the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, which were foundational, and that foundation is not to be laid again.

How one would do that is to profess faith in God, yet reject Christ. That will not save anyone. The devils believe in God, remember?

And having the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ does not mean one understands those First Principles, even in the manner in which they could be understood prior to the Coming of the Comforter:


Hebrews 5:9-14

King James Version (KJV)

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


God bless.

 

Nice.

Sorry, no, the cow was not holy, and it was created by the unbelievers.

The Rock was the Son of God Who would not be born for roughly two thousand years, and He was not known to them.

The Children of Israel were not Baptized into Christ, but into Moses:


1 Corinthians 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.


Moses was their Mediator, not Christ.


Also consider...


Hebrews 3

King James Version (KJV)

5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


And most of these people would fall in the desert due to unbelief:


17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?

19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.


What you do in misunderstanding these things is support the Insecurity of the Believer, or...loss of salvation. Just as you do by making the Tree a saved group in the eternal perspective.

National Israel is without controversy the People of God in the Old Testament, and God is the One Who brought them into relationship with Himself. God gave them direction, leadership, food, drink, and most importantly, He gave them the revelation of Himself, though Prophets and the Word of God.

That Word spoke of the WORD, yet to impose understanding of the Mystery of Christ prior to it's revelation not only damages a proper understanding of what God was doing in the lives of men, it diminishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because it equates the ministries God has performed through the Ages and denies the progressive nature of revelation itself.

That is correct, but until the Blood of Christ is applied to those believers they are not made perfect, or, complete in regards to Eternal Redemption.

All Old Testament Saints died having only offered up animal sacrifice for their sin, and we know that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin, and it cannot make the comer thereunto perfect (complete in regards to remission of sins).

They had faith, they were made just, yet they did not trust in Christ as their personal Savior.

In fact they all, to the man...rejected Him.

And you can start with Peter to make that case.

Abraham being the father of many Nations, the father of the Faithful, does not change the fact that the pattern of faith in God exampled in Abraham does not impose understanding of the Mystery of Christ into the Old Testament.

That would not begin until the Comforter was sent:


1 Peter 1:9-12

King James Version (KJV)

9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.


The Gospel of Christ was a Mystery, a previously unrevealed truth, and while Israel had hope in Messiah, when Messiah came...they received Him not.

Why? Because the Messiah they looked for was only a man come to redeem Israel physically. Peter's vehement rebuke of the thought that "his Messiah" would, or could die shows his carnal understanding:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


And if you think to deny this truth with...



Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


...I would simply remind you that this was revealed by God, not something Peter understood, any more than Caiaphas understood, when he prophesied that Christ should die for the Nation, that Christ would die for their sin.


God bless.

 

I've posted the Scriptures. You wrest them. We're done. (And folks were shocked that I said every Scofield bible needed to be confiscated, piled up and burned.)

 

Relevance to what DHK said?

You want to show any Old Testament Saint that understood the Mystery of Christ...before it was revealed by the Comforter?

I can show you the closest thing you will find, thus saving you a little trouble:


John 1:29

King James Version (KJV)

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.


Did John understand?

No, he was prophesying, and like all Prophets, he too would not understand that which was to be revealed in this Age:


Matthew 11

King James Version (KJV)

1 And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.

2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?


John would be executed not long after sending his disciples to inquire if Jesus was the Christ, and he would never have the opportunity in his life to trust in the Sacrifice of Christ.

That does not mean John was not justified by his faith in God, or that his eternal destiny hung in the balance.

But what it does mean is that John would die not having his transgressions redeemed by the Atonement. He would be made perfect after his death, and this completion would come after Christ's death:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

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.


God bless.

 

And shown how you have used them out of context and completely changed the teaching of Scripture with your misunderstanding.

No, it's you I am arresting, lol.

Glad to see you are done teaching error in public.

Correction, you are done.

But if you want to get your understanding straight so that you might be useful to the cause of Christ...let me know.

More deflection due to inability to defend your doctrine.

It's okay, I understand.


God bless.

 

The internet is a very useful tool Icon. I don't need to read the book. I simply need to look up an article on the net.