dispensationally ignorant

Speaking of misconceptions Sam, let me address briefly a couple that you have stated with regards to soteriology. I will keep it basic here.

1. You say that dispensational soteriology "proclaims man (the unbeliever) exercises his so-called “free-will” in order to activate his salvation."

This is untrue. Some dispensationalists do but that is not a part of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has not soteriology per se. Dispensationalism affects only ecclesiology, eschatology, and to some degree, pneumatology. Do not accuse dispensationalism of starting salvation by man because there are a number of us who will not.

2. On the salvation of OT saints, you again show a misunderstanding of what dispensationalism says about this. Dispensationalism does not believe that OT saints were saved in a different way than NT saints. All saints of all ages are saved by faith. What is different between the OT and NT is the content of that faith. You ask for clear unambiguous verses about what Abraham believed. The passage is Gen 15:1-6 and it says nothing about Christ. It is in reference to a family of descendants that will come from his own body. It says nothing about Christ. The burden of proof is on you to show that the OT saints had any objective knowledge of Christ. It simply is not there. In order to suggest that OT believed in Christ for salvation, you must access revelation that the OT believers did not have. Dispensationalists believe that man in every age is responsible for the revelation that he had. I have asked you and Chris for an OT passage that makes Christ the content of faith for the OT believer. So far, you have yet to offer one. It is because there is not one. You have no passage that makes Christ the content of the OT believer's faith. That does not suggest that OT believer was saved apart from Christ.

3. As for the indwelling of Christ and OT believers, I would only direct you to Col 1:27 where the indwelling Christ is said to be a mystery in the OT. I think Scripture should be sufficient to argue the point but I am under no such delusion. Again, your points do not stand the weight of exegesis. It involves eisogesis to get what you have out of passages.

You have also shown a misunderstanding of the dispensationalist view of the church and Israel. But that will have to wait.

Pastor Larry

How does that popular expression go concerning the OT and the NT, something like, the OT is something concealled and the NT is something revealed...

How in the world would the author of Hebrews ever, ever write chapter 11. Why is it that Paul calls Abraham the "Father of our Faith?"

Was not the sacrifice of Able pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of God's Son? True, God made with us a new covenant, "that speaketh better things than that of Abel."

If I remember school correctly, in Biblical exegesis you have the type and antitype, though they be not far apart.

More later...

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: doodle ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
S Baptist:
Your points are well taken. One of the main obstacles that the a and post people have to overcome is this: Why do they all take the prophesy of Jesus 1st coming literally and then when it comes to the 2nd coming they switch to taking all the prophesy "spiritually." On what basis do they do this? It really doesn't make any sense to me, but I continue to research the subject.
Thanks for all the points you have made. I've had others make the same points and they are convincing.
James2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


One other point that shows the difference between the "Church" and Israel".

Jesus said there would be no "signs given" to the "Church" except the sign of Jonas, however to the Jews he said "Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe. Joh 4.

"For the Jews require a "sign". 1Cor.

The "signs and wonders" (law and prophets) stopped with Jesus and church age, and when the Church age is "Rapture", the "signs and wonders" will return for the Tribulation period, without them Jews will not believe.

The "faults prophet" will call fire down from heaven in the sight of men, the Jews will do "exploits".

Everything that occurs during tribulation is in the "Physical realm", even Satan is manifested "in the flesh". (antichrist)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by doodle:
How does that popular expression go concerning the OT and the NT, something like, the OT is something concealled and the NT is something revealed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Popular expressions are not the best measure of theology.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How in the world would the author of Hebrews ever, ever write chapter 11. Why is it that Paul calls Abraham the "Father of our Faith?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What did I say that makes you think I disagree with this?

The question is one that you, nor anyone else, apparently want to deal with. It is this: Where in the OT is Christ made the content of saving faith?

The reason why no one gives a verse is because there isn't one. Abraham's faith was in the promise of God to give him a great nation from his own body. It is his faith in God that was credited to him as righteousness.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Was not the sacrifice of Able pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of God's Son? True, God made with us a new covenant, "that speaketh better things than that of Abel."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, why do you think I disagree with this? I don't. But please show me a place in the OT where it is said that Able's sacrifice pointed to Christ. The question is not did the OT sacrifices prefigure something or not prefigure something. The issue is, "What did the OT believers know? What revelation did they have that they were to respond to?" Again, simply put forth a verse a Scripture from the OT, where any believer offered a sacrifice in view of the coming Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If I remember school correctly, in Biblical exegesis you have the type and antitype, though they be not far apart.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah ... so??? Types and antitypes are very limited. I personally think they should be limited to things that the NT identifies as types. Some people see a type in everything and it becomes spiritualization or allegorization. It is akin to the covenant theologians tendency to redefine the plain meaning of the text to get something deeper from it. I reject it when Covenant theologians do it and I reject it when dispensationalists do it.

One of the major issues here is What does the text say? I will continue to go back to this time and time again. I doubt I will get many answers but you know it will be the constant chime of my posts. I simply do not think that covenant theology springs from the text before us and so far, no one has proven me wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb] Abraham's faith was in the promise of God to give him a great nation from his own body. It is...."his faith"...in God that was credited to him as righteousness.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it "his faith", or "God's faith" that was counted to him as "righteousness"??

God spoke (called) to Abraham, but who's decision was it to believe God, Abraham's or God's???

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
Was it "his faith", or "God's faith" that was counted to him as "righteousness"??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the only thing I can say is Read the text. Quit asking questions that are clearly revealed.

Sorry I'm getting in on this late, but I want to respond to a couple of things.
Pastor Larry wrote that dispensationalism has nothing to do with soterieology, only eschatology and others. This is completely untrue according to Scofield, Ryrie, Blaising, Akin, and virtually all other dispensational authors. I'd be curious as to why you think this, Pastor Larry. I'll be happy to cite some citations for this once I get back into the office. I'm in low power mode this week, save for sparring with a few liberals on other parts of the board

Someone brought up the old fallacy that dispensationalism was part of the doctrine of the early church. Again, this is not true. For a good historical perspective on this, see
Millenial Views in Church History
Again, I'll check back later. Keep defending the faith, Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb]

Again, the only thing I can say is Read the text. Quit asking questions that are clearly revealed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is for me, but I don't think it is for you.

Like Abraham, "OUR FAITH" is also counted as righteousness to us, and if it's "our faith", then, like Abraham, it's "our faith", (not God's) that is counted as "righteousness" to us.

If we're saved, by "our faith", we have a choice, if we're saved by "God's faith", we don't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Pastor Larry wrote that dispensationalism has nothing to do with soterieology, only eschatology and others. This is completely untrue according to Scofield, Ryrie, Blaising, Akin, and virtually all other dispensational authors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll be curious to see why you say this. When I say this, what I mean is that dispensationalism is not arminian in its soteriology. Dispensationalism does not have a distinctive soteriology in terms of sovereignty. The only thing you might say is unique to dispensationalism is the emphasis on man being responsible for the amount of revelation he has. In other words, becuase of our commitment to the text of Scripture, we do not believe that the OT believers believed "in Christ" for salvation. They simply did not have that revelation. They responded in faith to whatever revelation they had.

However, the common charge that dispensationalism is arminian is not true.

BTW, most people have moved past Scofield and hold to "essentialist dispensationalism" or "classical dispensationalism." There is a growing tendency in some circles towards a "progressive dispensationalism." However, its distinctives are not all that distinct. It is an attempt to find a middle ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Someone brought up the old fallacy that dispensationalism was part of the doctrine of the early church. Again, this is not true. For a good historical perspective on this, see
Millenial Views in Church History <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, what I said was not the dispensationalism as a system was part of church history. What was said, and what has been documented, is that dispensational ideas were a part of the early church. Those who say that dispensationalism is a product of the last 170 years are not telling the truth.

[ December 29, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
Like Abraham, "OUR FAITH" is also counted as righteousness to us, and if it's "our faith", then, like Abraham, it's "our faith", (not God's) that is counted as "righteousness" to us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think God has faith. Since God knows all things he doesn't take anything by faith. This is a ridiculous argument you are trying to make. Every person is saved by their faith. The question is, Where does that faith originate? What is its source? Scripturally, the source of saving faith is God.

Sam:
I just want to preface my remarks, like I did with the previous posts, that I am new to dispensationalism so I am not making dogmatic statements of fact. I'm questioning, even if it appears differently.

Actually, I was going to respond to everything in your last post to me, but Pastor Larry has already done that to a great extent.

Gnosticism, of course, has a far greater meaning than just "people with a special knowledge." In fact, gnosticism is rampant in today's culture. The so-called "New Age" movement to mention one example.

" A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour." Catholic Encyclopedia

Amillennialism was the view of the early church until about the time of Origen. Now, my understanding of amillennialism is that it teaches the kingdom of God is present in the church age, and at the end of the church age the second coming of Christ inaugurates the eternal state. Of course, this type of allegorical intrepretation can be seen in Plato's time when the blantant hedomism of the deities were interpretated symbolically in order to make them acceptable. The rabbis of Alexandria, Egypt, began to teach allegorically in ord4er to counter Gentile criticism of the Old Testament.(I can see this is going to get really long, so I'm going to condense a little).
My point was if the amillennial and postmillennial positions are right, and there is no further role for the earth, no 1,000 reign of Christ from the throne of David, (which has been intrepreted to mean a 2,000 year and counting reign from heaven) where does that leave the body, or the need for the earth? It seems to be saying that the body, the earth, anything material is of no importance. The emphasis seems to be on the saved being in heaven (the spiritual realm). That is also what I mean by dualism. The age old fight between true Christianity that says the body is important, that the material realm was also created by God and was good, and the tendency by most to "spiritualize" everything and say we'll be in heaven, and there is no further use for the body or the earth. I was just wondering how that can be supported, since the bible mentions a New Heavens and a New Earth, the meek shall inherit the earth, the earth abides forever, the lamb will lay with the lion, etc. Are all those scriptures meaningless. In order words, when the bible says that the meek shall inherit the earth, that REALLY means the meek shall inherit heaven?

As for the Preterist view or the hyper-Preterist view, I know little about either position, but to the extent that they say all the prophecy has already been fullfilled, I would reject both. It's obvious that all prophecy has not been already fullfilled.

Since Pentecost, of course Jews and Gentiles were in the body of Christ, the Church. But, I fail to see anywhere in the Old Testament that when the OT saints were performing animal sacrifices, they KNEW that that represented Jesus Christ. Maybe some of them did, but as a general rule, I don't think so. How could they have known? Even Jesus's apostles fought about who would be first in the kingdom and didn't understand everything.

Like Pastor Larry says, there is only one way to be saved, and that is by the grace of God and the finished work of Christ on the Cross. My point was where does it say in the OT that the concept of the "Church" and the actual church was already in existence? Israel and the Church do seem to be seperate, including in the NT. How can Israel be promised land as an everlasting possession, and all the other unconditional promises of God to Israel not be fullfilled? I've heard commentators just assume that the promises to Israel really meant the church, and then smirk if you question them. Like, you poor, uneducated fool, don't you even KNOW that Israel means the Church? No, I guess I don't.

God says I will make a covenant with the house of Judah. Now, I guess that means I will make a covenant with the Church? Ok, whatever, but it seems to be stretching it to spiritualize all the promises.

Now, I don't know if I am a dispensationalists. But I am a 5-point Calvinists (for lack of a better term). There is one way for salvation. I know in the OT Jehovah says in many places I AM your salvation. Of course, since Jehovah and Jesus are part of the Triune Godhead, that is a true statement. Maybe the OT saints knew their salvation was from God, Jehovah, then after Jesus appeared, and the cross, it became a lot clearer how the whole thing works. All I know is that there is only ONE plan of salvation.

By the way, since covenant theologians say there are only two dispensations or covenants -- the covenant of works and the covenant of grace -- where is that specifically stated. Where do you get those two covenants? Or are they just implied?

Actually, I find this all very interesting and I admit I'm a little out of my league on this subject, but this is how to learn.

God Bless
James2

Sam said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those to whom Jesus preached the gospel and were saved did so while under the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. The New Covenant/Testament gives us the clearest understanding of the whole of scripture and the NT has authority over the OT in areas of interpreting unclear verses in the OT. Since the authority of the NT clearly tells us that salvation is by grace through faith, then I would be rejecting our Lord’s own words if I believed salvation to be accomplished in any other way. It is the NT that describes Abraham as the father of “faith” to all of us. Now, if the father of faith was saved differently than you or I, then where in scripture, James2, do you find what that difference is. Don’t give me the typical Dispensational approach, just quote the clear and unambiguous scripture that has led you to believe this wasn’t true when Jesus preached His gospel to thousands in the gospel accounts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Sam for presenting some clear biblical truth which has not been answered nor addressed.

I've been very busy but hope to get back in the fray of things. In the meantime, I repeat a post I put on the Harlot of Rev thread which has been unanswered:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When all is said and done, it still comes down to the dispensational hermeneutic being entrenched in the OT superceding the NT, despite the fact that no NT writer interprets the OT in the dispensational manner. We simply cannot ignore the New Testament context when interpreting Scripture. If there was only one instance of the NT interpreting an OT “literal promise” figuratively, it blows the dispensational literal hermeneutic out of the water. Of course, there are many more than one instance. For example, the prophecy of the coming of Elijah.

Matt 17 tells us:“10 And His disciples asked Him, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.”

Mal 4:5-6 says “5 Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 “He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

Dispensationalists would have it necessary that Elijah come literally before the day of the Lord. Yet Jesus tells us in Matt 17 that “Elijah already came” and Matthew tells us “He had spoken to them about John the Baptist”.

Similarly, in Acts 15, James quotes Amos’ prophecy fulfilled about rebuilding the tabernacle of David in the then present dispensation when the gospel would go out to and include the Gentiles in salvation:

15 “With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 ‘AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,
AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,
AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
17 SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,’
18 SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
19 “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles

The dispensationalist would have it that the tabernacle of David must be physically restored for it to be fulfilled literally, over and against the inspired NT apostle. So much for dispensational literalism.

I assure you I am not becoming a “Braswellian”, but Joseph Braswell articulates it very well:

********literalism cannot be given a criteriological status as the way we are to interpret texts. We must rather pay attention to the way the NT treats OT texts, learning our paradigms of interpretation from canonical examples of New-Covenantal interpretation. We must read the OT bearing in mind that what God promised to the patriarchs God has fulfilled in his raising up Jesus ( Ac. 13:32b-33a) and that all the promises of God are affirmed as fulfilled in Christ ( 2 Cor. 1:20 ). We must look at the time inaugurated by the coming of Christ as the last days and time of eschatological fulfillment -- the antitypical substance of which the Old Covenant was but the typological shadow. Recognizing this, we will understand, for example, that Isaiah 2:2-4 does not refer to fleshly Israel's future glory in a coming millennial age (a judeocentric reading), but to the result of Pentecost. We will not look to another New Covenant (to be made in the future with fleshly Israel and Judah) as the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, but will take literally what Hebrews tells us, even as we will accept at face value what Peter said at Pentecost regarding the prophecy of Joel 2. We will understand OT eschatological expectation as that which the NT gospel announces as fulfilled. We will not allow an abstract (self-contained, stand-alone) OT theology -- an Old-Covenantal theology -- to determine the shape of NT theology and Biblical theology as a whole, but we will use NT theology as a key to interpreting the OT and read the OT as a part of a whole Biblical Theology that is the canonical theology of the New Covenant, seeking to understand how the end was declared from the beginning and how the NT develops OT themes. Such is the reading of faith.*********

Dispensationalism has failed to understand this basic requirement for Christian hermeneutics, and all manner of curious interpretation has followed. This problem can be avoided, however, if we adhere to the canonical context. The proper method of interpreting Scripture must be the method employed by Scripture itself. Since the NT does not interpret the OT prophecy in the same manner that dispensationalism demands, there is no legitimate reason to conform to its hermeneutical standard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks Sam for presenting some clear biblical truth which has not been answered nor addressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What has not been addressed? This has been addressed several times. Are you reading along?

I have repeatedly asked you or anyone else for an OT passage that commanded anyone to believe in Jesus or the coming Messiah for salvation. You have not offered even one verse of Scripture to support your assertion. There is a good reason for that. If you had a verse, you would readily trot it out. You have none so you say nothing. You simply divert.

Dispensationalism does not argue that salvation in the OT is by other than faith. I can cite dispensationalist after dispensationalist who will argue that salvation is by faith alone in the OT. The material is out there. Of course, if you read it you will lose an important straw man to your argument. If you continue to say that dispensationalism denies that salvation was by faith in the OT, you are being willfully ignorant (to use Peter’s words). It simply isn’t true. I have addressed this so many times I am getting tired of it. You apparently are not reading or interacting with Scripture. The issue is, “What is the content of saving faith?” What was to be believed? I have repeatedly asked for Scripture for you to define that question and you will not respond.

As for your other post, it too has been addressed. I don’t know why you are not reading or interacting with it. The simple point is that language cannot be treated in the manner in which you treat it. By your assertion, language means nothing because it means everything. Once you assert anything beyond authorial intent, you have destroyed the possibility of rational communication. You use a hermeneutic that no one uses. You do not even use your hermeneutic. The NT authors certainly did not. However, those are some of the discussions that are taking place at this time. As I have repeatedly said, every time you post, you show less and less knowledge about dispensationalism and language. You would be extremely upset if I treated your words like you treat God’s.

As for Elijah, you conveniently ignore Luke 2:17 – "It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah. Of course, your whole hermeneutic is built on selective exegesis of passages you think agrees with you while denying those that disagree with you. There are answers for that passage. Look them up. Use the commentaries and material available.

In Acts 15, you make some fundamental mistakes because you read the passage in light of your presupposition. Just as a very simply matter, look at how the passage starts. It says, “This agree with the prophets.” It does not say, “This fulfills” or “This is identical to.” It says, “It agrees with what they were saying.” That is a simple matter of exegesis that you overlooked. You assume identity and so take that view when the passage does not say that at all.

Your continued comments seem to confirm to me that you have done very little actual study. You parrot a lot of information that it does not seem like you have interacted with. Let me list some sources on this passage”
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aldrich, Willard M. “The Interpretation of Acts 15:13-18” Bibliotheca Sacra 111 (Oct 54): 317-323.
Zimmerman, Charles. “To This Agree the Words of the Prophets’: Critical Monograph on Acts 15:14–17.” Grace Journal 4 (Fall 63): 28–40.
Braun, Michael A. “James’ Use Of Amos At The Jerusalem Council: Steps Toward A Possible Solution Of The Textual And Theological Problems.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20/2 (June 1977) 112-121
Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. “The Davidic Promise And The Inclusion Of The Gentiles (Amos 9:9-15 And Acts 15:13-18): A Test Passage For Theological Systems” JETS 20/2 (June 1977) 97-111.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point in citing these is not to presume that you will read them. You probably won’t. Nor do they all agree with me. But it shows that the passage does not require what you assert. It simply shows that these “problems” have been dealt with. They are not new and they do not disprove anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The dispensationalist would have it that the tabernacle of David must be physically restored for it to be fulfilled literally, over and against the inspired NT apostle. So much for dispensational literalism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is another blatant example of eisogesis. Where does the inspired NT apostle say that the tabernacle of David (whatever that might be) will not be rebuilt? First, what is the tabernacle of David? You have not even established that. I would simply direct you to the OT to study what the tabernacle of David is. Perhaps then we can embark on discussion of the passage. I have not studied it fully. I have simply done a little reading on it.

Chris, I don’t mean to be offensive, but you seem grossly ignorant in the things you are talking about. Trust me … you do not understand dispensationalism. You continually misrepresent and cite others who do the same thing. It helps your case with those who don’t know the difference but it does not help your understanding. You do not understand what is at stake in what you are saying. You constantly (and rightly) complain about the misuse of Scripture by those who deny the sovereignty of God. Yet you do the same thing they do – you ignore or change the meaning of texts that don’t agree with your preconceived theology. You do not participate in exegesis. You have yet to make one comment on Jeremiah 31. You have no answer. Your whole system depends on denying the plain meaning of the text.

I can assure you that you have not come up with anything new. There are many dispensational writers who have addressed repeatedly the issues you bring up yet you continue as if you have driven the final nail in the coffin. You haven’t and you won’t. Dispensationalism does not fall because some one who misunderstands the issues continues to misrepresent them. Dispensationalism, like covenant theology, is not monolithic. Like covenant theology, it is in the continual process of revision and development.

I don’t know what else to say. I have repeatedly tried to get you to discuss Scripture but you refuse. You do not interact with Scripture much. You interact more with your beliefs than you do with Scripture. We can agree to disagree on this. My concern is that you understand what we believe and why we believe it and that you adequately deal with Scripture. I do not believe to this point that you have done either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[/qb]

I don't think God has faith. Since God knows all things he doesn't take anything by faith. This is a ridiculous argument you are trying to make. Every person is saved by their faith. The question is, Where does that faith originate? What is its source? Scripturally, the source of saving faith is God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lu 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Lu 17:5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.


Faith is a choice "we make", to believe or not believe.

The disciples didn't ask for faith, but it's "increase".

I heard something you can check out for your self. The "flu" has "got me".

I was "told" that "Cain" in Hebrew meant "he has come".

And he was so named because they thought he was the "Messiah" who had come to restore them.

Pastor Larry,
I'd agree with your statement that dispensationalism does not necessarily lend itself to strict Calvinism or strict Arminianism. One doesn't always have to do with the other. You have dispies in both camps.

And while disp. likely did not originate only about 150+ years ago, it certainly has not been advanced to the degree that it has been in the last 150 years. Most of the evidence supports the later influence of disp as opposed to the earlier influence of historical pre and amil/postmil.

Maybe I can get more into the fray this week. Things are too hectic right now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
And while disp. likely did not originate only about 150+ years ago, it certainly has not been advanced to the degree that it has been in the last 150 years. Most of the evidence supports the later influence of disp as opposed to the earlier influence of historical pre and amil/postmil.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One interesting (and seemingly valid) theory on this is the drawn from teh development of doctrine throughout church history. In the middle ages you had great disputes over the doctrine of Christ. In the reformation it was over soteriology and bibliology. In these last years it has been eschatology and ecclesiology. In other words, the state of the church just never promulgated intense study of the issue until now.

Unprovable assertion but perhaps having some validity.