dispensationally ignorant

Paul:

Its interesting the thread you mentioned was started by flaman who said "Who believes this? I do and would love a discussion on it. Anyone interested?" and then was never heard from again!

 

I'll take a shot. (Surprised????)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
Is there a difference between OT believers, the church age believers, those that believe during the tribulation (or is it still the church age) and those that believe during the Millenium?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what you mean by difference. There is no difference in the way that they are saved. Salvation is the same in every dispensation. There is a difference in terms of their ... how shall we say ... relationship to each other. Those saved from Pentecost to the Rapture are a part of the church, the body of Christ. We argue this from several points. 1) There is no church in the OT as evidenced by a) church is still future in the gospels (Matt 16:18); b) Christ had not yet died so his body could not yet exist; c) Spirit baptism, the building block of the body, the church, is still future in the gospels. Where nationality was everything in the OT (the Jews had a special place in God's eye), in the church there is no longer Jew or Gentile. All have equal footing. This truth was hard for the early church Jews to understand (cf. Acts 10-11). The OT saints will be raised after the millennium; the tribulation/millennial saints will repopulate the earth and ethnic Israel will have a superior place among the nations (the promise of restoration to a place of supremacy given in many OT kingdom passages -- something that cannot be shoehorned into the church age since even if the church is Israel, it certainly doesn't have respect and a place of superiority over the nations).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there any ECF who hold to dispensationalist ideas (rapture, 1000 year earthly reign etc). I know this isn't proof either way, just interested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you mean here after the apostolic era since the apostles did hold to these things . See Showers and Ryrie for documentation of the ideas through church history. The claim that dispensationalist ideas are new is often stated but well refuted for those who will do the research. The 1830 date that is commonly thrown out is the date where the thoughts carried through the ages began to be systematized.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>are the 144,000 Jews to be sealed during the tribulation or millenium.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tribulation

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do believers during the tribulation have something happen to them before the millenium begins?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good many of them are killed as martyrs for the faith. The rest enter the millennium without change. They are the ones through whom the earth is repopulated so that Satan has an army to assemble after he is loosed (Rev 20:7-9). One of the problems BTW, with the a- or post-millennial viewpoint is the binding of Satan. There is no place for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(I admit the whole millenium thing raises a lot of questions for me)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me, this is one of the easiest parts of dispensationalism. I will admit that, to a large degree, the rapture is the result of theological synthesis of several passages (though a very strong case can be made for it); the pretrib rapture is not explicitly stated. I believe the Millennium is a clearly revealed truth of Scripture. With no disrespect to my friend Chris, I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone denies it. I can understand historic premillennialism; I cannot understand a- or post-millennialism. There are too many clear passages that must be "made to walk on all fours" as my systematic professor used to say.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

While attempting to respond to your post, I discoverd that only part of it transfered to this response so I have copied and pasted that to which I would respond:


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pastor Larry: Those saved from Pentecost to the Rapture are a part of the church, the body of Christ. We argue this from several points. 1) There is no church in the OT as evidenced by a) church is still future in the gospels (Matt 16:18); b) Christ had not yet died so his body could not yet exist; c) Spirit baptism, the building block of the body, the church, is still future in the gospels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To say that anyone who was ever saved but not in the same body of Christ is, of necessity, saying that there is either more than one body of Christ or that there is something other than or different than the body of Christ where some believers reside.

First of all, there is no scriptural basis for saying that Christ has more than or something other than or something different than His one and only body, which is His church.

Matthew 16:18 does not in any way whatsoever state that Christ will build a church in the NT any differently than His church of the OT or prior. Let's not forget that what our Lord says in Matthew 16:18 is clearly and undeniably stated in the OT, not the NT. It is also imperative to not overlook the fact that Christ Himself stated in Mattew 18:15 that one should take their accusations of a sinning brother to the "church". This is also clearly and undeniably in the OT, not the NT.

Jesus made no distinction of "any" kind, whether relationally with each other or with Himself.

Your claim that "There is no church in the OT as evidenced by a) church is still future in the gospels (Matt 16:18)" is disproven by Christ's own statements since Christ clearly referred to His church already existing.

Secondly, your claim that "Christ had not yet died so his body could not yet exist" does not prove anything but the opposite of what you stated. Christ had not died when Abraham was living and proclaimed by God Himself to be in a righteous standing with Him and that Abraham was also the father of faith to all Christians, which is also the same reference He told Peter in Matthew 16:18 about the church being built on faith. I would challenge you to show strong evidence, not Dispensational opinions, that when the Father elected "before the foundation of the world" those whom he did foreknow, whom he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren and that those whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified, Romans 8:29,30, He was referring only to those since Pentecost. If your Dispensational view is correct then "all" who were foreknown before creation is a false statement by our Lord or He was only referring to "all" those since Pentecost which rules out Abraham, the father of faith, as being in Christ's one and only body, the church.

Thirdly, to your statement that, "Spirit baptism, the building block of the body, the church, is still future in the gospels" doesn't agree with our Lord's words, "For as we have many members in one body..., So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another", Romans 12:4,5. For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread", 1 Corinthians 10:17. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit", 1 Corinthians 12:13. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby", Ephesians 2:16. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling", Ephesians 4:4.

To say that Christ has more than one body (church) or something other than His one and only body (church) or that "some" who have been saved are in something "other than" His only body (church) is a rejection of clearly revealed scripture.

When referring to the rapture, you stated:
"To me, this is one of the easiest parts of dispensationalism. I will admit that, to a large degree, the rapture is the result of theological synthesis of several passages (though a very strong case can be made for it)". However, you later state, "There are too many clear passages that must be "made to walk on all fours" as my systematic professor used to say, with reference to rejecting Chris Temple's A-Millenial view". Perhaps you can quote those "clear" passages that are the result of "theological synthesis" of several passages concerning either the rapture or the millennium. Actually Pastor Larry, neither A-Millennialism nor Post-Millennialism denies a period of time known as "the Millennium". They simply reject the Dispensational view of the Millennium. They also do not reject the doctrine of the rapture, only the Dispensational view of the rapture.

Dispensationalism finds a need to "synthesize" several verses to say what none of those verse actually say only to defend its own hermeneutic. For instance, you stated, "I believe the Millennium is a clearly revealed truth of Scripture". Yet you also stated that you synthesize verses together to create a strong case. If scripture clearly reveals the Dispensational view of either the rapture or the Millennium, why then would anyone need to synthesize verses together in order to have a justifiable defense? Why wouldn't you just simply present the clearly revealed verses?

As always Pastor Larry, I intend no disrespect with my statements so please receive them in Christian love.

Sam Hughey

p.s.
Your statement, "One of the problems BTW, with the a- or post-millennial viewpoint is the binding of Satan. There is no place for it" is not true. Both positions have a place for the binding of Satan. Even a superficial understanding of both systems would clearly reveal their views of the binding of Satan.

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Sam Hughey ]

 

Sam Hughey:
I am going to enjoy this discussion on dispensationalism because I am rather new to the whole concept. I guess I was in the amillennial school.I always thought that the "Church" took the place of Israel. I mean how many times have you read about the Israel of God, and the almost ridicule of a person that thought prophecy had much to do with anything. Promises were made to Abraham, the Jews were disobedient so the Church inherited all the promises.

Needless to say, that is a hard position to defend, unless a person wants to allegorize most of the scriptures that seem to show that the Church and Israel are totally seperate.
Like I said before, I'm rather new to this, but I'm starting to see that the dispensational system is the much more literal, conservative, consistent system. But I'm open and always willing to learn.

I have a couple of questions.

1. Doesn't it seem to you that the amillennial and the postmillennial positions, when you get right down to it, are a form of gnosticism? Both of those systems seem to want to bring God down to man, and on the other hand, bring man up to God. It seems almost like they are advocating a type of dualism. The material against the spiritual, as if the spiritual is somehow superior to the material. I don't think the bible will support that concept. After all, the body, the earth, the created order, as well as the spiritual was created by God. Man fell, but so did the angels. No superiority there. In dispensationalism man fails everytime. Man can do nothing. In the other systems man seems to "help" God or rely on their own powers. Man gets better and better then Christ can return. I don't know, that seems God-dishonoring to me. God is in complete control and man can do NOTHING of himself.

2. How does one deal with the fact that all the prophecy that dealt with the first coming of Christ was taken in the most literal sense and was fulfilled in the most detailed literal sense. Then when it comes to the Second Coming all of a sudden everything is taken in a nonliteral sense? That doesn't make sense to me.
3. As far as I can tell the Church and Israel are never interchanged. They are always seperate. Why would Israel mean the Church? Even Paul, after Penecost refers to Israel and the Church as different things.
4. As far as I can tell, the Church has BOTH Jews and Gentiles in it. That of course wasn't true in the Old Testament. Further, Christ is said to dwell in the members of His body -- both Jew and Gentile. That was not true or was not experienced by God's people in the Old Testament. Having Jews and Gentiles in the same body was a mystery not revealed to the Old Testament saints.
Now, I'm not pretending to know much about any of this, but I sure seem to be leaning to the dispensational concept.

One last question: How do the amillennialist and post millennialist deal with things like Ezekiel, Chapters 40-43 and the very, very detailed description of how to build the New Temple? Is all that to be an allegory instead of literally? That doesn't make any sense to me either. Why would God devote 3 chapters of scripture in such detail when it wasn't meant to be taken literally?

Also, do you think that the main reason for God dealing with man in the first place was to show His own Glory, or was it to save man? I guess that would make a difference on how one sees things. Of course it isn't really important what I think, but what the Bible teaches. It seems if you take things in the plain, literal sense, the bible makes more sense than if you try to "spiritualize" the texts.
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Sam Hughey:

2. How does one deal with the fact that all the prophecy that dealt with the first coming of Christ was taken in the most literal sense and was fulfilled in the most detailed literal sense. Then when it comes to the Second Coming all of a sudden everything is taken in a nonliteral sense? That doesn't make sense to me.

James2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many times have I heard people say: "I understand the "trinity", But do they "really"??

Jesus is the "Word of God", and he is both Spiritual and Physical, and his Spiritual side doesn't disagree with his physical, and his physical doesn't disagree with his Spiritual.

The Bible is also the "Word of God", and like Jesus, it too is both Spiritual and physical, and like Jesus, neither it's Spiritual or physical (literal) interpretations disagree.

Most accept both Old and New testaments as being "The word of God", but because of the
"Physical relationship" (signs and wonders) God had with Israel, and the "Spiritual
relationship" Jesus has with the Church, many believe the two books "are not connected" where prophecy and interpretation are concerned.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, God only has "one plan", from beginning to end, and that plan is spelled out in both the OT and NT, but until it's understood how to reconcile both the physical OT prophecy/interpretations with the spiritual NT prophecy/interpretations, you'll never have the "complete picture".

I'm not at liberty to "publish" certain materials, but I'll give you "one example".

Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and
dreadful day of the LORD:

We know that during the tribulation "Elijah" (one of the "two witnesses") will come to Israel before the "day" that the Messiah comes to Jerusalem.

However Elijah came as John the Baptist, and the Messiah has already come to Jerusalem,
but the Jews didn't know the "Day" of "thy visitation".

From this one prophecy, we have both a spiritual and physical application, but, believe me, it doesn't end there.

Reconciling both the physical OT with the Spiritual NT opens up a world of knowledge that's as easy to see/understand as the prophecy concerning Elijah, and it's put to rest all argument concerning the "pre-trib rapture", and the "Seventh day of rest". (Millennium Reign).

Is Jesus God? Is God Jesus? Why is God married to Israel, Jesus to the Church? How can "two" be "one", and "one be "two"??

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

How can both Israel and the Church be "one"???

As the "word of God" (Jesus) is both physical and spiritual, so is his "written word", and this
"dual nature" applies to the Bible, which must be read/understood/interpreted the same way.

Understanding "Trinity" is to understand the Bible, because "it's that kind of Book".

 

Sam and others,

I will be in and out for a couple of days. I do intend to respond becuase you have said some things that need to be addressed. Again, I think you have participated in selective hermeneutics and outright misrepresentation of dispensationalism. I do not want to let it go unanswered. So as soon as I have some time, I will address them.

As well, for all who are reading along, please understand that S. Baptist does not represent any type of mainstream dispensationalism. I likely will not take time to respond to him but I do want others to know that his approach is not a sound one and does not represent dispensationalism. I am separating myself from him so that you will not be confused into thinking he and I are arguing the same point.

[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paul hadik:
Chris:

I am genuinely interested! really! seriously!

Am now reading some Dispensationalists books (one by Ryrie and another a collection of essays by someone)

But in my Bible reading on Sunday I noticed again that in Exodus the Sabbath is considered a perpetual covenant between Israel and God.
So, Chris, my Christmas question for you is...
are we then obligated under CT to honor the Sabbath
(and by the way, is there a reason that this 1 commandment we just totally toss out the window?)

paul<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul:

Not sure why you're asking me But
The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXII: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day says this:

VII. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by His Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto Him,[28] which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's Day:[29] and is to be continued to the end of the world as a Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.

28. Exod. 20:8
29. I Cor. 16:1-2; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10

VIII. The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations,[30] but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.[31]

30. Isa. 58:13; Neh. 13:15-22
31. Matt. 12:1-13

BTW, I am not as strict a Sabbatarian as the LBCF as I am more NCT than CT.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
Sam Hughey:
I am going to enjoy this discussion on dispensationalism because I am rather new to the whole concept. I guess I was in the amillennial school.I always thought that the "Church" took the place of Israel. I mean how many times have you read about the Israel of God, and the almost ridicule of a person that thought prophecy had much to do with anything. Promises were made to Abraham, the Jews were disobedient so the Church inherited all the promises.

Needless to say, that is a hard position to defend, unless a person wants to allegorize most of the scriptures that seem to show that the Church and Israel are totally seperate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James:

There is a great gulf of difference between allegorical interpretation and interpreting figuratively, as do the NT writers. Read teh excellent articles

Interpreting Prophecy: The Canonical Principle and The Myth of "Consistent Literalism"

 

chris:
Thanks for the reply. Like I said, I am really new to the whole concept of dispensationalism. I never gave it the time of day. I realize of course the big difference between allegory and figurative interpetation. However, how does one rationally say that the 2500 times Israel appears in the bible, always referring to Israel, somehow mean the Church?

It seems to me that one of the main reasons that God promised the "land" as an everlasting possession (which of course has not been fulfilled as of yet) was because that is something very tangible that can be verified. If God's promises to Israel cannot be fulfilled or are "spiritualized" away, then what promises of God can any of us rely on?
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
chris:
Thanks for the reply. Like I said, I am really new to the whole concept of dispensationalism. I never gave it the time of day. I realize of course the big difference between allegory and figurative interpetation. However, how does one rationally say that the 2500 times Israel appears in the bible, always referring to Israel, somehow mean the Church?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James:

I have no idea how many times the word "Israel" appears in the Bible, but I do know that any word cannot be interpreted woodenly literally everytime, or else when God renamed Jacob Israel, it means he was no longer a man but a nation. The context of the passage in which the word is used and as interpeted by the NT writers determines what Israel, or "all", or any other word means at any given time.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:

It seems to me that one of the main reasons that God promised the "land" as an everlasting possession (which of course has not been fulfilled as of yet) was because that is something very tangible that can be verified. If God's promises to Israel cannot be fulfilled or are "spiritualized" away, then what promises of God can any of us rely on?
James2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can rely on every promise of God when we interpret in the way he meant it, the regenerate believers who heard it understood it, and the way the NT writers interpret it.

Hebrews 11:13-16 (ESV)
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. [14] For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. [15] If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. [16] But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

 

Chris:
Are you saying that if a person is regenerated he will not be a dispensationalist? Surely not!!!

How do you deal with the detailed description of the building of the New Temple in Ezk, chapters 40-43? Why the detail if it is not meant to be literal?

What about the unconditional covenants of land possession given to Israel? How can anyone possibily say that the land means (heaven) and the everlasting promise to Israel means (the church) and Israel, even after Penecost means the Church, not Israel.

What gives here? I'm beginning to think that a lot of people are reading their preconceived theological position into the plain meaning of the text.

When scripture says over and over and over again I promise you this land forever and this is THE land I promise, what else is that suppose to mean? I promise you the land....I mean heaven.. Israel I make a covenant with the House of Israel and Judah...I mean the Church..

Jesus indwells the believers in the Church -- Jews and Gentiles alike. Did Jesus indwell the body of the Old Testament saints like he does since Pentecost? I'm beginning to think that there is something to this dispensation idea. Especially, since the covenant theology is almost no older (not that makes a difference anyhow) than dispensationalism.

Really, all I want is the truth about this. Either way is fine with me becaused I am saved by grace, regenerated by the Sovereign Grace of God and had NOTHING to do with my salvation, but this subject is pretty interesting.
James2

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
[QB]Chris:
Are you saying that if a person is regenerated he will not be a dispensationalist? Surely not!!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I am not (and did you read the Heb 11 quote?) What I am saying is that dispensationalism interprets Scripture in the same manner as the unregenerate Jew did - materially, looking for the big Land Reward.

As it is Christmas Eve, I will probably not be around for the rest of tday and tomorrow, so please don't think I'm evading your questions. But as far as someone pushing their theological interpretations onto Scripture, you are most correct: except it isn't the nondispensationalist! Here's a quote from the Van Deventer article:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The conviction of a superior, literalistic approach to Bible interpretation can lead to a spiritual arrogance leading to a feeling of infallibility. One man noted, "As a former dispensationalist I was mesmerized with the literal hermeneutic, the way in which we interpreted the Bible. I was satiated with the confidence that this principle of interpretation was the cornerstone of any true approach to Scripture, and paraded it before all as the bedrock of the dispensational method. This `literal' approach produced in me a calm lethargism to anything the covenant men could say. Any argument they could make was disarmed in advance with such statements as this: `They do not advocate a literal hermeneutic.'"

This testimony illustrates the grave danger that literalism can inadvertently be regarded as a higher standard of truth than the Bible itself. Rather than allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, the Word of God is sifted through a literalistic filter on the theological presupposition that God shuns figurative prophetic language....Those who evaluate the claims of literalists are stunned by the glaring inconsistencies of that system. O.T. Allis notes, "While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers." One of the most influential early dispensationalists, C.I. Scofield noted that the prophetic scriptures should be interpreted with "absolute literalness" while "historical scriptures have an allegorical or spiritual significance." LaRondelle rightly identifies this approach to Bible interpretation as an "inconsistent and conflicting double hermeneutic." So radical was the approach of the literalists that Hughes expressed "fear that the dispensationalist method of interpretation does violence to the unity of Scripture." Gerstner and others have commented that literal hermeneutics are not determinative of dispensational theology, rather dispensational theology determines its hermeneutic and does so inconsistently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Chris:
I did read the Heb quote. I will be doing some research on the whole subject so I can better discuss this.
Over all, I would say we agree about 99 per cent on the stuff we have posted here.

Dispensationalism is something that I decided to look at after reading Charles C Ryrie's book on Dispensationalism.

Have a very Merry Christmas. God Bless.
James2

 

Might I suggest a book...

The Gospel According to Despensationalism: A doctrinal survey of the system that permeated Fundamentalism.

by Reginald C. Kimbro

A place to purchase it is at:
http://www.sgat.org/

under their literature page. This organization is located in England so you'll have to deal with that.

I have it and it has helped me to unravel the many layers of nonsense in the Depensational cloth.

----------------------
STRENGTH & HONOR

 

Doodle:
Unravel the layers of dispensational nonsense? Well, you may be right, although what about all the layers of nonsense in amillennialism and especially in the over optimistic humanism of postmillennialism?

It just seems to me, and I do not have an preconceived theology on this, that the two above mentioned theories seem to be man-centered, a distorted method of interpretation, a false humanism and, most of importantly, unbiblical. At least that's the way it is looking to me.

When you read the history of the development of those two positions, they seem weak indeed.

Once again, how do you deal with the detailed plans in Ezk., chapters 40-43 on the building of the New Temple? The measurements are not the same as Solomon's temple, and if you make all those pages, and pages of details symbolic you end up with endless contradictory views of total nonsense. Why would God see to it that all those detailed plans were put in the scriptures, unless they mean what they say. I say that the burden of proof is on the people that say all those details are in fact not details. 4 cubits mean 4 churches in Roman, or whatever.

More study is needed but I am definitely leaning toward the most normal interpretation, which would be that the words mean what they say.
Hope you had a great Christmas. I sure did. Enjoyed by daughter, son-in-law (best in-laws in the whole world) and my two beautiful, wonderful, sweet, precious granddaughters (not biased or anything). Merry Christmas everyone!!
James2

 

Sam,

To respond to a few of your points:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To say that anyone who was ever saved but not in the same body of Christ is, of necessity, saying that there is either more than one body of Christ or that there is something other than or different than the body of Christ where some believers reside. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So? It is obvious there is something other than the body of Christ where some believers reside. To say that the body of Christ existed in the OT is to necessarily imply that Christ’s death and resurrection was not necessary for his body to exist. Your later argument about Abraham seems out of place here. I am not sure what your point is. I am not arguing that Abraham was saved apart from Christ. However, I challenge you as I did Chris to show one verse in the OT where Christ is made the explicit content of faith. Unless you have a different Bible than the rest of us, you will not find it. Christ is not made the content of Abraham’s faith.

If you think the body of Christ existed in the OT, it is incumbent on you to show a reference to it in the OT. For you to say that First of all, there is no scriptural basis for saying that Christ has more than or something other than or something different than His one and only body, which is His church. , is just plain unsupported from Scripture. As I have said, every reference in Scripture to the body of Christ is in reference to the NT church. It takes an extrabiblical assertion to say anything different. I think that is evidenced by the fact that you have provided no OT reference to the body of Christ. Israel in the OT is never called a body of any sort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Matthew 16:18 does not in any way whatsoever state that Christ will build a church in the NT any differently than His church of the OT or prior. Let's not forget that what our Lord says in Matthew 16:18 is clearly and undeniably stated in the OT, not the NT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is it in the OT? No one has yet to show an OT verse with this in it. Furthermore, the verse clearly has a future emphasis (will build) rather than a present one (am building). Your assertion would require the present tense that simply is not there. That is why I say that your supposition cannot withstand exegesis. Additionally, to talk about “His church in the OT” would be like talking about “America in the Middle Ages.” Neither one exists.

Matthew 18:15 is the only possible argument you have. However, it is an obscure one at the best and is should therefore be interpreted in light of the clear ones. However, you again err when you say This is also clearly and undeniably in the OT, not the NT. Please show the OT reference for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would challenge you to show strong evidence, not Dispensational opinions, that when the Father elected "before the foundation of the world" those whom he did foreknow, whom he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren and that those whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified, Romans 8:29,30, He was referring only to those since Pentecost. If your Dispensational view is correct then "all" who were foreknown before creation is a false statement by our Lord or He was only referring to "all" those since Pentecost which rules out Abraham, the father of faith, as being in Christ's one and only body, the church. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, where is “elected before the foundation of the world” in Rom 8:29-30?? Second, using the text itself, why do you assume that Rom 8:29-30 refers only to the church?? Third, why do you assume that I argue that being conformed to the image of his Son is identical to being in his body? In other words, you have not practiced exegesis here. You approached the text with your assumptions, and then read what you think “it must say.” It does not say that the election is with reference to the body of Christ only, it does not talk of election from the foundation of the world (which truth I do not reject), and it does not equate being conformed to the image of Christ with being in his body. Here you have practiced eisogesis, not exegesis.

On Spirit baptism, you cite a number of passages all dealing with the church. They do not address the argument that we are having here. I agree with every single passage and the exegesis of those passages will confirm that none of them refer to the OT believer. It is incumbent on you to show that the passage in question deals with the OT believer. BTW, as a simple matter of argumentation, the fact that they do not deal with the OT believer does not disprove your point. Your point “may” be true; but you cannot prove anything about the OT believer and Spirit baptism by quoting something about the NT believer. It would be akin to me assuming that every one has dark hair because I do. I have made a true statement about me; it is not proof regarding anyone else until it is verified to be true. So again, the ball is in your court to show where Spirit baptism is in the OT. Then you must show why, if Spirit baptism is in the OT, the gospels refer to it as future. Again, the exegesis is against you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To say that Christ has more than one body (church) or something other than His one and only body (church) or that "some" who have been saved are in something "other than" His only body (church) is a rejection of clearly revealed scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is clearly revealed, then show the passage where the OT believer is said to be in the body of Christ. Every passage you have listed cannot exegetically be sustained to prove your argument. It is only your presuppositions about what the body of Christ is that allows you to say that. The text does not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When referring to the rapture, you stated: "To me, this is one of the easiest parts of dispensationalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go back and read my post. This is not what I said. I was talking about the Kingdom, not the rapture. You read my posts like you read Scripture The Millennial Kingdom is clearly revealed; the Rapture is the result of theological synthesis. The Millennial kingdom is clearly revealed in five major prophets, twelve minor prophets, four gospels, The Davidic covenant, the New covenant, several epistles, and the Apocalypse. I do not believe I said that A- or Post- millennialism denies the millennium. I believe what I said was that they must make these passages “walk on all fours” to get around the Kingdom of Christ on earth as prophesied in the OT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dispensationalism finds a need to "synthesize" several verses to say what none of those verse actually say only to defend its own hermeneutic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where? BTW, synthesis is the discipline of Systematic theology. Everyone does it; some are consistent and some are not. Dispensationalism does not defend a hermeneutic to my knowledge. They use the same hermeneutic that everyone uses every day. It is called ‘normal.’

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[qb] Why wouldn't you just simply present the clearly revealed verses? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>/qb]

On the Millennium??
Jer 31:32-40; Ezek 37:21-28; Zech 12-14; Rev 20; 2 Sam 7:8-16; Rev 20; Isa 11; etc. ad infinitum ad nauseum. These passages on the Millennium are hard to miss unless you are predisposed against the teaching of them. Have you ever read McClain’s book, The Greatness of the Kingdom? (I asked Chris several times and he never answered.) This book is indispensable if you want to know what DT believes about the kingdom. In a nutshell, the reason why we believe the kingdom is still to come is because whatever has happened up to now does not in anyway resemble the prophecies of the mediatorial kingdom in the OT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>[qb] Both positions have a place for the binding of Satan. Even a superficial understanding of both systems would clearly reveal their views of the binding of Satan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>/qb]

By place, I meant a time for it to be fulfilled as Scripture describes it. I do not mean that they not assert that it is true. I mean that their understanding of it does not meet the scope of the biblical description. What they assert as the binding does not seem to be a binding since Satan is still the prince of the power of the air. To argue that Satan is now bound would seem to deny Eph 2:1-3, Eph 6:12, and a number of other passages that talks of the current role of Satan in this world.

_______________

I see Kimbro's book referenced above. It is amazing to me the stuff you guys read and accept as gospel truth. Kimbro, like Gerstner and Mathison (and might I add Poythress's Mis"Understanding Dispensationalism") are a very poor way to find out what dispensationalism believes. I promise for every chapter in their book, I can point out error or misrepresentation one right after another. Take it from a dispensationalist that these men do not rightly represent us. Disagree if you will ... but least be accurate about what we believe.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
[QB]Doodle:
Unravel the layers of dispensational nonsense? Well, you may be right, although what about all the layers of nonsense in amillennialism and especially in the over optimistic humanism of postmillennialism?

It just seems to me, and I do not have an preconceived theology on this, that the two above mentioned theories seem to be man-centered, a distorted method of interpretation, a false humanism and, most of importantly, unbiblical. At least that's the way it is looking to me.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James, you had better look harder. To say the above is a bit naive, as a combination of amil/postmil is essentially the early and dominant position of the Church. You may be confusing the liberal postmillennialism which was popular in the early part of the century, with true postmil, but biblical postmil and amil are centered securely in the sovereignty of God, proper biblical hermeneutics, and is entirely theocentric, not anthrocentric.

False accusations against the historic church eschatological positions does not help the cause of dispensationalism.

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]