Dispensationalism

[JesusFan]

That's informative. I honestly don't follow that end of the spectrum of Christianity any more. I like to hear what you guys say on this because I find myself back in a church more dispensational (at least at the John MacArthur level) and yet I still have a lot of relatives with bookshelves full of amillennial books and so on. The older I get the more I realize I most likely will not see what unfolds from this side anyway. But I do remember that in the 70's we had great fun trying to figure out who the antichrist was and putting numbers to everybody's names to see if they could come out as 666. And I remember when we got cable with more stations John Hagee if I remember right always had huge fantastic murals of end time events behind him when he spoke.

He held to heresy, as any saved jew must receive jesus as their messiah and Lord in order to be included in New Covenant, as he held that they could still get saved by that old one still

 

[John of Japan]

So some of you believe that the ashes of the red heifer atones for sin?

Never heard of this in my life.

 

[easternstar]

For dispensationalists

Do you believe that the reinstitution of the sacrifice is efficacious in nature?

Thanks

Allow me to comment, even though I'm not a dispensationalist, and this is one reason why. It's a hideous doctrine, and it is another gospel, or rather no gospel. The whole dispensational scheme is a denial of the work of Christ.

 

[easternstar]

As to the OP question on whether a reinstituted sacrifice is effectual..........
I presume you mean a future temple sacrifices, per Ezekiel 40 - 48......? The short answer is no.

Some people have major heartburn over the idea of future temple ceremonies, claiming they would be blaspheming Christ's finished work. The discussion must consider that the Mosaic sacrifices were not effectual......the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin. So were the Mosaic sacrifices blasphemous? How about the temple in heaven that God showed Moses.......was that one blasphemous? Obviously not. So if there is no issue with God instituting a Mosaic sacrifice that is not effective, there is no issue with God instituting a millennial sacrifice that is not effective, but a memorial that looks back on Christ's effective sacrifice.

Wouldn't say the Mosaic sarifices were blasphemous, but they weren't instituted by God, either.

 

[SovereignGrace]

As to the OP question on whether a reinstituted sacrifice is effectual..........
I presume you mean a future temple sacrifices, per Ezekiel 40 - 48......? The short answer is no.

Some people have major heartburn over the idea of future temple ceremonies, claiming they would be blaspheming Christ's finished work. The discussion must consider that the Mosaic sacrifices were not effectual......the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin. So were the Mosaic sacrifices blasphemous? How about the temple in heaven that God showed Moses.......was that one blasphemous? Obviously not. So if there is no issue with God instituting a Mosaic sacrifice that is not effective, there is no issue with God instituting a millennial sacrifice that is not effective, but a memorial that looks back on Christ's effective sacrifice.

But the OT sacrifices were pointing to a future one time sacrifice for all time sacrifice. Seeing that Christ fulfilled them, there is no further need of them, nor a necessity of them being reinstituted at a later time.

 

[Ascetic X]

The Jews saw to it that Jesus was crucified.

They sinned away their birthright.

Yes, Jesus Cursed the Fig Tree.

Romans 11:1-2

1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

 

[John of Japan]

Allow me to comment, even though I'm not a dispensationalist, and this is one reason why. It's a hideous doctrine, and it is another gospel, or rather no gospel. The whole dispensational scheme is a denial of the work of Christ.

I am a dispensationalist. I believe the Gospel as presented in the Bible in 1 Cor. 15: Christ died for our sins according the Scriptures, with the burial proving that, and then He rose bodily from the grave, as proven by 500 witnesses. Do you believe some other gospel?

And please enlighten us. How is the "dispensational scheme," as you put it, a "denial of the work of Christ"? Christ and His glory is at the center of dispensationalism. I believe in the incarnation, virgin birth, perfect and sinless life, substitutionary atonement by the death on the cross for our sins, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. Do you believe in something different about Christ?

 

[JesusFan]

I am a dispensationalist. I believe the Gospel as presented in the Bible in 1 Cor. 15: Christ died for our sins according the Scriptures, with the burial proving that, and then He rose bodily from the grave, as proven by 500 witnesses. Do you believe some other gospel?

And please enlighten us. How is the "dispensational scheme," as you put it, a "denial of the work of Christ"? Christ and His glory is at the center of dispensationalism. I believe in the incarnation, virgin birth, perfect and sinless life, substitutionary atonement by the death on the cross for our sins, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. Do you believe in something different about Christ?

It goes all back to when any of us think that we now have Apostolic theology understanding, that we feel that we can state with certainity that if you are a Calvinist, or a non calvinist, or a Dispy or a CT, or hold to this mode pf baptist, etc that all with yoiur view are great, but those against are all wrong pretty much
The truth is that we all read and understand the bible thru a glass dimly