Post tribulation arguments

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Quote:

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.

No...it isn't.


Just because you sit under teachers who are greatly biased and confused, and have muddled your thoughts with junk theology greatly tinged with hatred...doesn't mean the nonsense spouted is relevant to anyone in this thread in this discussion.

What hatred? That only anger I sense is from you, toward me.

You assume too much, lol.

If you do not see anger and hatred in the attacks made on Dispensationalism I truly feel sorry for you.

I stand by the statement.

But onto this discussion, if anyone is going to have an honest debate then terms have to be defined.
When the 2 people debating have different definitions of a given word it makes debate impossible.
When terms are used, such as Dispensationalism, it only make sense to allow the major proponents and teachers of the view definition stand in a debate.
That would be like someone saying they are a Calvinist but they don’t believe in Pre-destination, and any time someone pointed to Calvin, saying that his views don’t matter but I’m still a Calvinist. It would make no sense to the person they were debating and just cause people to go around in circles as each try to define their terms.

I would agree with this in large part, the problem at hand being...you interjected this into the thread, and you did so based on false premise.

DHK did not say in that post that Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist, but showed similaritles between the two theologies held.

And that point was addressing the same tired argument that you and your buddies interject into any thread that mentions a Rapture.

You talk about going in circles...look down to your feet. You guys are digging a trench in the shape of a circle.

So you don’t like the way that the major proponents of Dispensationalism define it, that’s fine, but then your issues is with them, not me, because they are the ones teaching these things under that banner that you want to be under

I could care less about how anyone defines anything other than God through Bible Writers.

That is the point.

You want to argue what these men believed, great, why don't you guys go start a forum where you can get your jollies on your biases, and leave other forum members to actually discuss these issues.

Quote:
What is a dispensation?

Is it a division of people?

Or Ages and ministries of God?

Nice word play there. But I did not say Dispensation did I? I said DispensaionaLISM. There is a difference as you well know. But you don’t want to get into Dispensationalism do you?
[/QUOTE]

Let me see if I have this correct: the word dispensation is irrelevant to Dispensationalism.

And you are correct, I don't want to get into dispensationalism, but into the Bible. I have said that many times, which part of that do you not understand?

Now answer the question.

Understand that the basic premise of dispensationalism would of necessity have to be dispensational. And a priority in dispensations is whether that is a valid method of understanding the differing ministries of God in the progressively revealed Redemptive Plan which includes the fact that the Rapture is called a Mystery.

These are not issues exclusive to Dispensationalism and without question can be seen to correspond to First Century (as well as Old Testament) teachings better than the most seriously flawed system men have devised...A-millennialism.

That is the true "new invention," and because it is so weak we see her proponents forced to make arguments that leave the Doctrinal Arena.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
And that is precisely DHKs point in regards to OR...an incessant hang-up with Darby despite the fact...no-one even quotes Darby.


Dispensational Theology has a central focus on the differing ministrations, and how the Church and Israel play into that is only one aspect of a multi-faceted view based on a more literal rendering of Scripture, which, I will throw in, is how men have always rendered the Word of God.

Well we are getting a little closer now. At least you are giving a partial definition of Dispensationalism here.

Sorry, no, I am still addressing your error.

I am not trying to encourage your derailment of the thread.

The point is that Dispensationalism is not simply a matter of a couple of distinctive doctrines, as there are many Doctrines associated with Dispensationalism, and the points reviled and used to derail Doctrinal Discussion only make up a limited amount that applies.

Yet Dispensationalists are treated as heretics on their way to Hell.

Quote:
So Ryrie places a distinction between Israel and the Church first you think that is the central issue.

Great.

No I don’t think that is the central issue, but Ryrie does.

Ryrie didn't bring it up...you did.

In an erroneous response which generated quite a bit of irrelevant fluff.

Why do you do that?

And apparently you have an issue with that so I suggest you take that up with Ryrie, not me. I’m just the messenger telling you what top proponents of Dispensationalism think.

And you are the only one who really cares. Some of us have our attention on Biblical Doctrine, and when views of Church History arise only Scripture can mediate the difference of views.

Again, let's look at what God says about these issues.

Quote:
Now let's set Mr. Ryrie and Dispensationalism aside and actually look at what Scripture teaches.

Ok Great! When there is Scripture bring discussed I will discuss it. There wasn’t in DHK post that I was responding to, just like there is not any in you post to me.

There has been plenty of Scripture for you to address.

Read the thread...instead of playing your games.

But you won't do that, will you.

Quote:
And I will guarantee you that Dispensational will far closer to substantiating their views than your teacher...OR. I would say you but you don't seem to know what to believe. Ever get that worked out?

Oh I love the snark here.

It's a valid question: have you yet decided which side of the fence you are on?

And again, a dispensational view will be seen to correspond to Scripture far greater than an A-millennial view.

Of course you know what they say when you resort to attacking your opponent.

Not sure how addressing your error is attacking, but, take it as you like.

As far as your guarantee, go for it. Start a tread defending Dispensationalist views.

And here is the conclusion to your derailment: that is what you want, to argue about Dispensationalism.

How about just dealing with the thread at hand, instead of derailing it. How about dealing with the Scripture presented that is relevant to the thread. You need to stop playing games, Doctrinal Discussion is serious and can have eternal impact on others.

And it's thread, not tread, by the way. Although "treading" does seem to be a common M.O. of your club.

Although given that you have already shown you disagree with some of the major teachings of that view and jumped on me for their views that would be amusing to see.

And that is the real reason you are here, to amuse yourself.

Pitiful.

This might surprise you, but some of us could care less what Mr. Spurgeon has to say. At least...we don't put his views above what Scripture actually teaches.

As to your not so veiled attack

I openly say Spurgeon does not impress me very much. Sorry if I offend someone's god.

that I put his views above Scripture, I would point out to you that I was just responding to DHK statement about Spurgeon.

It is a fact that some think his views are the last word...they are not.

And instead of addressing Scripture, you create a false argument. I guess that is an effective way of hiding the fact that you cannot address the Doctrinal Issues of the Rapture apart from a reliance on what men say.

He brought him up and I responded in kind. Again if Scripture is presented I would have responded with Scripture.

Again, there is plenty of Scripture you can respond to, yet you create a false argument to derail the thread to something you think you understand.

Although since that seems to be your standard where is your Scripture in your response to me?

Read the thread. In these responses I deal with your false argument which derailed that discussion.

Quote:
By the way, the post you responded to plainly stated that Spurgeon was a Calvinist.

Ok what does that have to do with anything?

Seriously? lol

That's the point.

He said he was a Calvinist, you said he stated he was Dispensational.

I hate to say it, but the above shows quite a bit of confusion. Prince of Preachers? lol

Well now we just have one more thing you and I disagree on.

Imagine that.

A distinction between Israel and the Church does not mean "the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about," it has to do with the revelation provided to each group and the ministry God was effecting during those times.

And they are different.

Even prior to Israel being created, God was ministering differently among men.

If you care to discuss this, perhaps you might better understand something that I am sure Mr. Spurgeon understands better now.

No I have no interest in getting involved in your disagreement with Spurgeon.

It's not about Spurgeon, it's about the Doctrine.

That is what you don't want to get involved in.

You ignore points that expose your hostility towards Dispensational Theology as absurd.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318
Bold Mine

Not quite the word I would think is appropriate.

I’m not even sure why you would put this here.

I like to think of it as humor but my humor might get a little facetious sometimes.

You can call it snarky if you like, I don't have a problem with that.

It is customary you know that if you bold something in a quoted passage that you acknowledge when you put something in bold as opposed to letting the reader think the quoted author put it in Bold.

lol

And he was wrong.

So you think. Col. 3:11 and Gal 3:28 shows he is correct.

Read what I said, not sure how you can think this makes sense.

But again you missed the point I was making. Spuregon and Darby can in no way be in the same camp.

And the point is irrelevant tot he discussion at hand.

That is the point.

DHK did not say he was. And you create the false argument to derail the discussion to your pet whipping boy.

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?!

Since you have difficulty in understanding certain concepts, I will remind you that in view is the contrast between National Israel and the Church, which is an aspect of Dispensational Theology objected to.

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed, but every member of the Church is.

The reason for that is because their sins had to be atoned for, they all dying having only offered up vicarious animal death, contrasted, again, with the vicarious death of Christ when He died.

You speak about the importance of words, but feel free to exchange "redeemed" with "saved," then seek to start yet another false argument.

So let's nip this in the bud, you admit your rewording and misunderstanding of what I said, whether intentional or not, and then actually progress to the Doctrine, which is an element embraced by Dispensational Theology. At least the Dispensational teachers I am familiar with.

Again, I will remind you that the issue in view is a distinction between Israel and the Church. While we can say those of Israel who were redeemed under the standard of the New Covenant can be said to be a member of the Church, we cannot say that those "saved" (justified by faith) prior to the Atonement were eternally redeemed.


Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

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.


Here is the first passage presented for you to consider, so make good on your word and address it.

And hopefully, along the way, you admit that...

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?!

...was only said by you.

And how that plays into the discussion is that a distinction between Israel and the Church is a Biblical Fact, and that opposition to the Pre-Trib Rapture, and not even to the Post-Trib Rapture...cannot be borne out with a rejection of that Biblical Truth.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture.

I have given you one passage for consideration, here is another:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


There is no controversy as to whether Israel was under the Law. If the Writer of Hebrews thinks they were, and that the sacrifices they offered up were to be abandoned in favor of the Sacrifice of Christ, then perhaps you should consider that he might have known what he was talking about.

Show me the Old Testament Saint, whether under Law, or prior to it...who did not offer up animals for their sin.

Were they saved by grace through faith? Absolutely.

But were they eternally redeemed through the blood of Christ?

Try to prove that one, and you can show how the blood of bulls and goats stand on a par with the shed Blood of Christ.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

I didn't say that...you did.

But the fact that you cannot recognize your error evidences an unwilling spirit that seeks truth.

So tell me...is amusing yourself really all that satisfying?

But let's take a look at one of your "saved" Apostles:

Peter under Law receiving the very Gospel of Jesus Christ from Jesus Christ:


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.


Peter after being eternally redeemed and Baptized with the Holy Ghost:


Acts 2:29-33

King James Version (KJV)

29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.


Peter in opposition to the Gospel, and Peter the witness of Christ after he is Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

See the difference?

See that Peter makes it clear that what they are seeing follows Christ's Ascension?

Now, you have two choices, you can roil in your offended state and continue to evade the Word of God, and continue to create false arguments because you don't want anybody to know your confusion, or...

...you can address the points being made.

Yes, Peter was "saved" by grace through faith, but Peter was not privy to the Redemptive Work of Christ, and was in fact in opposition to the Gospel...before he was brought into union with God eternally through the New Covenant. His sins were not forgiven until Christ died in His place.

Abraham did not declare "It is finished," nor did David, not did John the Baptist. Christ did.

Peter was of Israel until Pentecost, and of the Church on that day. That is a simple conclusion drawn from the very Word of God itself.

That is Biblical Fact without controversy, except for those who seek simply to amuse themselves with controversy...for the sake of argument.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And I would ask you...are you saying that all of Israel was saved? Do you not understand that only the faithful of Israel were counted as just? And that even though counted just through faith...they were still in need of Atonement?

I’m not saying anything, I’m quoting Spurgeon to show that he cannot be placed inside the same camp as Darby.

You are right, you "are not saying anything," at least, not anything of relevance or Doctrinal importance.

That is the point of these responses, to point that out, and hopefully discourage you from continuing to disrupt and derail threads.

Now the question still stands...are you saying that all of Israel was saved?

You can't, and it goes to reason that this unhinges your attempt to defend an offensive on a Theology you do not understand. You need to actually build a theology, instead of focusing in undermining one. And when you come to understand the functional parts, perhaps it may change your attitude towards people you do not even know.

But to answer your questions, No not all Jews were or are saved (although some in the Dispensational camp would argue with that, so you might want to take that up with them).

So the next question is how can Israel be the Church?

Everyone in the Church is saved, and many in Israel were declared just, not to mention men prior to the Law, so can you say, in conflict with a basic Bible teaching...

...that Israel was not the People of God in that Age?

And don't bother trying to equate Israel with the Israel of God, spiritual children of God, because that is not what is in view. What is in view is National Israel who was the People of God under that Economy.

That is simply basic.

Yes I do understand that. Of course they still needed Atonement, the Book of Hebrews makes that clear.

So if they still needed atonement, how say you that they were of the Church?

Does anyone become a member of the Church before they are saved?

And don't bother mentioning the Elect...they are not saved under New Covenant standard until they are actually Reconciled.

But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

Sorry, no...you said that.

And you did the same thing you did with DHK, and now you owe both if us an apology for your confusion, lol.

Here is what I said:

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

Here is what you say I said:

But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

See the importance in the difference? You completely forget the heart of the issue which is your reviling of the Doctrinal Position that there is a distinction between Israel and the Church.

You replace Israel with "Jew" and thus distort your antagonist's statement, just as you did with DHK.

I stand by the statement, and hope one day you understand the significance of that truth. I mean that sincerely.

I can understand you not understanding the difference between a people who to a man died not having eternal redemption through Christ, but Spurgeon? Thanks for the quote. I will put that up there with his charismatic tendencies.

Honestly I don’t even understand what point you are trying to make here

Just my opinion of Spurgeon. I think he leaned towards a somewhat charismatic demeanor. Just an opinion, my own, and it only matters to me.

(besides the obvious attack which I will give you is slightly ironic given that I don’t understand what you are saying here)

This is hilarious.

You see it as an attack even though you don't know what I am saying.

Go figure.

I think there might be a typo here but I’m not sure.

No, I meant it. No typo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318
That itself is enough to put him firmly outside of the camp of Dispensationalism.

You're the only one putting him in there.

No the definitions set up by the proponents of Dispensationalism put him there.

Again, you are the one putting him there, It is the false premise of your false argument, and you have now sullied this thread as you often do in other threads. Pages of irrelevant garbage that distract from what might help people grow in their understanding of not only Scripture, but of people who have embraced views contrary to their own.

I hope you are amused.

If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them, not me.

I could care less about any opinions about any Theological System.

That's you and your club, remember.

But I am used to you debating something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Not really but your attack is noted nonetheless.

It's the truth, not an attack.

And you should feel grateful to the staff of this forum for putting up with it.

Especially when Staff members point it out repeatedly, and that is ignored.

A truer word was never spoken, "for the sake of argument," and unfortunately, that's all you are able to offer right now.

Once again Ironic coming from the poster who has a tread where he is looking for antagonist.

Again you show your ignorance and confusion. First, "antagonist" does not have to be negative, it is simply a term that describes people with opposing views. Secondly, the reason why I am seeking antagonists is for the purpose of a book project I would like to put together, and there is nothing hostile about it.

That contrasted with your argumentative and antagonistic (negativity implied here) attitude which has nothing to do with serious Doctrinal Discussion that actually addresses those differences by consulting Scripture.

No, that is a mark of careful study of First Century teachings of the Bible.

Except it’s not.

It is, and I hope one day you will understand that.

Too late for Spurgeon, but not for you, I hope...

Careful study of the Bible has always lead me away from the pre-trib rapture.

You sure it was not rebellion to your teachers?

Opinion?

Failure to actually be diligent in study?

So how about trying something different, and actually addressing the topic of discussion. Address the arguments for a Post-Trib view and the Pre-Trib views offered.

Any time you want to actually discuss what the Bible has to say about it let me know. If you would like to present a Biblical presentation to substantiate an A-mil view, or a mid-Trib view, or a poet-trib view...let me know.

So I can get more personal attacks on my intelligence and Bible Study.

Yup.

Or, maybe to actually discuss what the Bible has to say, instead of what Darby, Scofield, and Spurgeon have to say.

Gee how could I pass that up.

Quote:
Continued...
 

You do a remarkably good job of doing it. That is what I hope to help you with.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

In the context of Matthew do you want to be taken or left?

Neither: those taken (and see the Greek on this, kind of interesting) will die physically, and those left are those born again during the Tribulation, which would mean, if we end up being one of those, we are not saved prior to the Tribulation, and in a LaHaye context...left behind, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Sorry to disrupt the disruption and actually attempt to post a topical post, but another argument offered by Progressive Dispensationalists (which correlates to the teaching that the First Resurrection is the "first" in sequence):

"The Two Witnesses are not actual men, thus to consider this a Rapture (or, The Rapture) is in error."

I will just state that this would be rejected based on the fact that the "Two Olive Trees" of Zechariah seem to indicate offices of men (King and Priest), and that we see them minister 3 1/2 years (contrasted with the fact that the Word of God has no limitations of ministry), are said to die physically (and the concept of the death of the Old and New Testaments conflicts with Scripture), are bodily raised, and then...

...caught up to Heaven, or Raptured.

That being contrasted with a concept of the Word of God being removed from the world.

It's a poor argument shared by many A-millennials, but does not stand up to what Scripture actually speaks of them.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

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.

Ok We have a passage of Scripture to discuss.
Just to give a little context, of the book of Hebrews before diving into the 9th chapter, I would say that the main point of Hebrews is that Christ is Better.
He is better then Angeles ch. 1-2
He is better then Moses ch. 3
He is a better High Priest ch. 4-7
He gave us a better Covenant ch.8
and that brings us to Chapter 9 where He is a better Sacrifice.
the Book of Hebrews makes it clear that the OT was just a Shadow of the real thing in heaven. That the sacrifice of animals was just a Shadow of what Christ would do on the Cross.
This of course all is built from the previous chapters.
Jesus being the Better High Priest, is able to make a Better Sacrifice (vs 11) because He doesn't use the shadow, (the blood of animals) to enter the Holy Place, but instead uses His own blood (vs 12). Where as the sacrifice of animals was only able to sanctify the flesh (vs 13) The Blood of Christ is able to purify our conscience to actually be able to serve God (vs. 14)
Now because Christ is better He is the mediator of the new covenant, a covenant of grace, not of works, giving us the promise of an eternal inheritance, since the price was paid to redeem us from our sins done under the law (vs 15)

 

[Darrell C]

Ok We have a passage of Scripture to discuss.

Actually, there are numerous passages already in the thread to discuss. Let's not overlook that.

But, this is a step in the right direction. This issue will actually play into the topic at hand, as an understanding of the distinction between Israel and the Church can be seen in Prophecy.

Just to give a little context, of the book of Hebrews before diving into the 9th chapter, I would say that the main point of Hebrews is that Christ is Better.
He is better then Angeles ch. 1-2
He is better then Moses ch. 3
He is a better High Priest ch. 4-7
He gave us a better Covenant ch.8
and that brings us to Chapter 9 where He is a better Sacrifice.
the Book of Hebrews makes it clear that the OT was just a Shadow of the real thing in heaven. That the sacrifice of animals was just a Shadow of what Christ would do on the Cross.
This of course all is built from the previous chapters.
Jesus being the Better High Priest, is able to make a Better Sacrifice (vs 11) because He doesn't use the shadow, (the blood of animals) to enter the Holy Place, but instead uses His own blood (vs 12). Where as the sacrifice of animals was only able to sanctify the flesh (vs 13) The Blood of Christ is able to purify our conscience to actually be able to serve God (vs. 14)
Now because Christ is better He is the mediator of the new covenant, a covenant of grace, not of works, giving us the promise of an eternal inheritance, since the price was paid to redeem us from our sins done under the law (vs 15)

I have to get going, but want to make sure that you address the point raised in the post, and if I am premature, ascribe that to hoping to see a response to those points when I get back (Lord willing).

Here are the accompanying comments and questions relevant to that particular passage:

There is no controversy as to whether Israel was under the Law. If the Writer of Hebrews thinks they were, and that the sacrifices they offered up were to be abandoned in favor of the Sacrifice of Christ, then perhaps you should consider that he might have known what he was talking about.

Show me the Old Testament Saint, whether under Law, or prior to it...who did not offer up animals for their sin.

Were they saved by grace through faith? Absolutely.

But were they eternally redeemed through the blood of Christ?

Try to prove that one, and you can show how the blood of bulls and goats stand on a par with the shed Blood of Christ.

The particular point is whether Israel was eternally redeemed. Do we make a distinction between those economies, or, as many think, is the "salvation" of the Old Testament Saint identical to that of those inducted into the Church through salvation in Christ?

And as an edited note I want to reiterate "Spiritual Israel" is not in view, but National Israel.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Sorry to disrupt the disruption and actually attempt to post a topical post, but another argument offered by Progressive Dispensationalists (which correlates to the teaching that the First Resurrection is the "first" in sequence):

"The Two Witnesses are not actual men, thus to consider this a Rapture (or, The Rapture) is in error."

I will just state that this would be rejected based on the fact that the "Two Olive Trees" of Zechariah seem to indicate offices of men (King and Priest), and that we see them minister 3 1/2 years (contrasted with the fact that the Word of God has no limitations of ministry), are said to die physically (and the concept of the death of the Old and New Testaments conflicts with Scripture), are bodily raised, and then...

...caught up to Heaven, or Raptured.

That being contrasted with a concept of the Word of God being removed from the world.

It's a poor argument shared by many A-millennials, but does not stand up to what Scripture actually speaks of them.

God bless.

The two witnesses represent Christian evangelism throughout the Gospel age.
rather than attempt a hugely long post to try and justify that, here's a link:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/20...-7-the-temple-measured-and-the-two-witnesses/

 

[blessedwife318]

Actually, there are numerous passages already in the thread to discuss. Let's not overlook that.

But, this is a step in the right direction. This issue will actually play into the topic at hand, as an understanding of the distinction between Israel and the Church can be seen in Prophecy.





I have to get going, but want to make sure that you address the point raised in the post, and if I am premature, ascribe that to hoping to see a response to those points when I get back (Lord willing).

Here are the accompanying comments and questions relevant to that particular passage:




The particular point is whether Israel was eternally redeemed. Do we make a distinction between those economies, or, as many think, is the "salvation" of the Old Testament Saint identical to that of those inducted into the Church through salvation in Christ?

And as an edited note I want to reiterate "Spiritual Israel" is not in view, but National Israel.


God bless.

So let me get this straight you jumped on me for quoting men, but then when I do discuss Scripture that you posted, you jump on me for not discussing what YOU had written. I was letting the passage speak for itself instead of imposing your thoughts onto it.

 

[Darrell C]

The two witnesses represent Christian evangelism throughout the Gospel age.
rather than attempt a hugely long post to try and justify that, here's a link:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/20...-7-the-temple-measured-and-the-two-witnesses/

Thanks for the link, but no thanks.

If you want to discuss the actual event discussed in Scripture, let me know. They are clearly men ministering for 3 1/2 years.

But thanks for reiterating the tendency of many to quote men and seek to avoid direct Doctrinal Debate with a Scriptural presentation.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

So let me get this straight you jumped on me for quoting men, but then when I do discuss Scripture that you posted, you jump on me for not discussing what YOU had written. I was letting the passage speak for itself instead of imposing your thoughts onto it.

Don't be silly...you didn't discuss the Scripture or the points I presented, you felt inclined to enlighten with a "little background," and entirely avoided the point. And just for the record, I will throw in the question...

"...better than what?"

And if you answer that question you will see it substantiates my view...not yours, or those you quote.

Now, once again, you make it personal with another ridiculous argument.

Make up your mind. You say you would be fine discussing Scripture, but I guess, as your posting history will show, only what you feel needs to be discussed.

There is a difference between discussion and just quoting men. There is a difference between debating the points and simply quoting men.

I didn't ask you to quote me...but to show how it is in error, and that with the Scripture in view, not quotes of men.

Now, are you going to address the point or not? I hope so, there are several other points to get to as well.

And just for the record...I didn't "jump on you," lol.

Just yanking your chain in an attempt to bring your focus on some serious issues I see in your posting. Nothing emotional about it, it is just a standard form I rarely have to use, though it can be effective at times.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

Don't be silly...you didn't discuss the Scripture or the points I presented, you felt inclined to enlighten with a "little background," and entirely avoided the point. And just for the record, I will throw in the question...

"...better than what?"

And if you answer that question you will see it substantiates my view...not yours, or those you quote.

Now, once again, you make it personal with another ridiculous argument.

Make up your mind. You say you would be fine discussing Scripture, but I guess, as your posting history will show, only what you feel needs to be discussed.

There is a difference between discussion and just quoting men. There is a difference between debating the points and simply quoting men.

I didn't ask you to quote me...but to show how it is in error, and that with the Scripture in view, not quotes of men.

Now, are you going to address the point or not? I hope so, there are several other points to get to as well.


God bless.

Don't be silly I did discuss it. I went verse by verse from the passage you gave, and even did some background showing how Christ is Better then Angels, Moses, a high priest, and sacrifice. But I take it you disagree since you clearly don't like my post.
So did you want to discuss the passage, or what you said? Ironic that you seem more interested in discussing what you said then the Scripture itself given all the jabs at me.

 

[Darrell C]

Don't be silly I did discuss it. I went verse by verse from the passage you gave, and even did some background showing how Christ is Better then Angels, Moses, a high priest, and sacrifice. But I take it you disagree since you clearly don't like my post.
So did you want to discuss the passage, or what you said? Ironic that you seem more interested in discussing what you said then the Scripture itself given all the jabs at me.

I want to discuss it. That is why I offered the points with the Scripture themselves.

This is the part where you say "I agree" or I disagree" and then comment on why Scripture validates or invalidates the points raised.

Nothing in this...

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Just to give a little context, of the book of Hebrews before diving into the 9th chapter, I would say that the main point of Hebrews is that Christ is Better.
He is better then Angeles ch. 1-2
He is better then Moses ch. 3
He is a better High Priest ch. 4-7
He gave us a better Covenant ch.8
and that brings us to Chapter 9 where He is a better Sacrifice.
the Book of Hebrews makes it clear that the OT was just a Shadow of the real thing in heaven. That the sacrifice of animals was just a Shadow of what Christ would do on the Cross.
This of course all is built from the previous chapters.
Jesus being the Better High Priest, is able to make a Better Sacrifice (vs 11) because He doesn't use the shadow, (the blood of animals) to enter the Holy Place, but instead uses His own blood (vs 12). Where as the sacrifice of animals was only able to sanctify the flesh (vs 13) The Blood of Christ is able to purify our conscience to actually be able to serve God (vs. 14)
Now because Christ is better He is the mediator of the new covenant, a covenant of grace, not of works, giving us the promise of an eternal inheritance, since the price was paid to redeem us from our sins done under the law (vs 15)

...addresses the point/s raised concerning the underlying issue...the distinction between Israel and the Church.

So do you see that there is a distinction drawn between Israel and the Church based on the fact that Israel offered up the blood of bulls and goats, which is distinguished to redemption through Christ?

That is the point in view.

Have to get going (really leaving this time, lol), but again what is in view is that distinction, which is denied by some, and is a point of reviling in regards to Dispensational Theology. I suggest that there is such a distinction, and that equating Israel and the Church (which is a nullification of the fact that there is a National Israel in view in the Old Testament who is the People of God of that Age who were not eternally redeemed as every member of the Church is through New Covenant relationship) is a fundamental error many people engage in.

So on this one point, I have offered Hebrews 10:1-4 (in this particular post, that is) and commented why it is relevant.

If you disagree, then show why the point is in error, and you are free to choose whatever Biblical passage you like, you are not secluded to the one I presented.

I will check back in when I can to see your response.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

Don't be silly I did discuss it. I went verse by verse from the passage you gave, and even did some background showing how Christ is Better then Angels, Moses, a high priest, and sacrifice. But I take it you disagree since you clearly don't like my post.
So did you want to discuss the passage, or what you said? Ironic that you seem more interested in discussing what you said then the Scripture itself given all the jabs at me.

You see what's happening here is your discussing honestly the issues and the topic but you're dealing with two people would have trouble being honest .
and you quoted it you you pointed that out earlier on and then you get 50 pages of nonsense no substance attacks and everything else twisting of words because they realize no one's going to go back and read through all the long winded post that say nothing.

They attack you and try to make a big deal because they can't actually answer the substance of what you said
the honesty that you call them out on is lacking so they go into all the world with their objections and twist clear teachings of Scripture.
they twist definitions that the whole church understands and goes by but no we have to listen to only what they think the terms mean:sleeping_2:..
Your honesty is too much for them to bear upon this so they have to jump all over the place to avoid it:thumbs: we all see how they post oh so the truth is coming out one way or another even if they will not directly addressed it comes out in their writing because we could all read what it doing:thumbs:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks for the link, but no thanks.


God bless.

None so blind as those who won't see.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature. Nothing is literal. You need spiritual eyes to understand. There are no numbers 9 or 13 (for example), they are all sevens, twelves and a thousand.

How about a quick study on 1,000?

Psalm 50:10. 'For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.'
There are more than 1,000 hills in the world. Do the cattle there not belong to God?

Psalm 90:4. 'For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past.'
Would 1,001 years be more than that? (cf. also 2 Peter 3:8).

Psalm 105:8. He remembers His covenant forever; the word which He commanded for a thousand generations.'
There have not yet been a thousand generations of men, but if there are, will His covenant fail?

Isn't it staringly obvious that 1,000 is never literal in Scripture, but that it means all the years or things that are?

God bless you too. :wavey:

 

[DHK]

You see what's happening here is your discussing honestly the issues and the topic but you're dealing with two people would have trouble being honest .

"trouble being honest"
No debate here. Just ad hominems--the mark of those that know not debate.

and you quoted it you you pointed that out earlier on and then you get 50 pages of nonsense no substance attacks and everything else twisting of words because they realize no one's going to go back and read through all the long winded post that say nothing.

"nonsense no substance attacks"
No debate here. Just ad hominems--the mark of those that know not debate.

They attack you and try to make a big deal because they can't actually answer the substance of what you said

"They attack you" More ad hom; no debate. A denial of the truth.

the honesty that you call them out on is lacking so they go into all the world with their objections and twist clear teachings of Scripture.

"twist clear teachings of Scripture." No debate; simply unsubstantiated false allegations.

they twist definitions that the whole church understands and goes by but no we have to listen to only what they think the terms mean:

"they twist definitions" no debate, just false allegations.

Your honesty is too much for them to bear upon this so they have to jump all over the place to avoid it:

"they have to jump all over the place" no debate; only false allegations.

we all see how they post oh so the truth is coming out one way or another even if they will not directly addressed it comes out in their writing because we could all read what it doing

"they will not directly addressed it No debate; but the posting of an outright lie. Each and every post has been directly answered.

Such derogatory posts are actually against the rules.

 

[revmwc]

You see what's happening here is your discussing honestly the issues and the topic but you're dealing with two people would have trouble being honest .
and you quoted it you you pointed that out earlier on and then you get 50 pages of nonsense no substance attacks and everything else twisting of words because they realize no one's going to go back and read through all the long winded post that say nothing.

They attack you and try to make a big deal because they can't actually answer the substance of what you said
the honesty that you call them out on is lacking so they go into all the world with their objections and twist clear teachings of Scripture.
they twist definitions that the whole church understands and goes by but no we have to listen to only what they think the terms mean:sleeping_2:..
Your honesty is too much for them to bear upon this so they have to jump all over the place to avoid it:thumbs: we all see how they post oh so the truth is coming out one way or another even if they will not directly addressed it comes out in their writing because we could all read what it doing:thumbs:

So now ICON is connecting all who disagree with being this way! Wchich is simply not true