The premise of the op is in question and remains unproven as of yet. Further, there has been no attempt made to support the premise of the op. It is merely assumed.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A major weakness of Dispensationalism
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
I would agree.
This is the problem Van desires to contend, but from a different perspective, that some can actually prevent others from entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
The doctrines of grace cannot rest upon what man can and cannot do.
Nor do the Scriptures allow for condemnation of those in Christ upon what man can and cannot do.
I also agree that dispensational thinking has nothing to do with how one preaches on hell.
Last edited:
But what if you are called to preach ONLY about salvation and NOT about Hell ?
You know what I mean - just like only "going into all the World" but not called to disciple others
That is called "partial obedience" which is, in reality, complete disobedience!
English translations historically translate two Greek words as "hell." The first is Hades, where the human spirits of the lost go after physical death, and second is Gehenna, where, presumably, the lake of fire exists. Two very different places, so to translate them as the same place creates confusion. If your bible says "hell" you need to put "H' next to it when the actual text reads Hades, and put a "G" next to it when the actual text reads Gehenna.
This thread is very much a bait and switch thread, with its title speaking about dispensationalism, but the thread simply smearing the concept with a guilt by association unsupported assertion.
A big problem with Traditional Dispensationalism is that both groups, believing Jews, and believing Gentiles, are on group under the New Covenant. See Galatians chapter 3 if you do not understand this truth. Now if you want to argue for Covenant Theology over and against progressive dispensationalism, have at it.
This thread is very much a bait and switch thread, with its title speaking about dispensationalism, but the thread simply smearing the concept with a guilt by association unsupported assertion.
A big problem with Traditional Dispensationalism is that both groups, believing Jews, and believing Gentiles, are on group under the New Covenant. See Galatians chapter 3 if you do not understand this truth. Now if you want to argue for Covenant Theology over and against progressive dispensationalism, have at it.
Oh for the love of the monkey! I made a logical error.
You sure did - the correct response is "Oh for the love of the rabbits"
How about NCT for additional fun?English translations historically translate two Greek words as "hell." The first is Hades, where the human spirits of the lost go after physical death, and second is Gehenna, where, presumably, the lake of fire exists. Two very different places, so to translate them as the same place creates confusion. If your bible says "hell" you need to put "H' next to it when the actual text reads Hades, and put a "G" next to it when the actual text reads Gehenna.
This thread is very much a bait and switch thread, with its title speaking about dispensationalism, but the thread simply smearing the concept with a guilt by association unsupported assertion.
A big problem with Traditional Dispensationalism is that both groups, believing Jews, and believing Gentiles, are on group under the New Covenant. See Galatians chapter 3 if you do not understand this truth. Now if you want to argue for Covenant Theology over and against progressive dispensationalism, have at it.
Amen. Best post of this thread!
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
Van is correct. That is exactly what you did.
I haven't been at BB a long time. But I'm getting the idea that you enjoy creating conflict by baiting people.
Titus 3:9-11New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11 knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
What part of "I'm very aware of Bunyan's words" do you not understand?
The rest of this post makes no sense whatsoever. If I'm elect, I don't have to be involved in hell.
Please stop condescending.
No one is telling you that you can't preach about hell.
However, Hellfire and damnation hardly makes anyone want to embrace the Savior.
Now back to your OP. Do you have any scriptural support regarding your statement?
"This weakness seems to be mostly in Dispensationalist churches, yet as a FB poster testifies not in Reformed churches. Many will go to Hell because so few will preach on it, and warn others of the fire that awaits them!"
How EXACTLY did you determine what Dispensationalist churches don't preach hell? Do you have some statistics, or personal research that demonstrates this claim is accurate?
Where in the Bible does it say people can go to hell because of what another person did or did not say? Chapter and verse please.
I would advise you not to hold your breath waiting for Evan to answer your questions.
I read God's Book on Hell and it was really, really good.
That was not the question. The book is called "Sighs from Hell."
You being aware of Bunyan's words does not mean you have read his book on hell called "Sighs from Hell." What part of this do you not understand?
This is a debate board. Can you not handle the pressure and debates?
Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black
Also a single use of Tartarus, “God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus), and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment . . .” (2 Pet. 2:4). The word in Greek culture and literature means "a deep pit." It usually refers to a place of severe torment.English translations historically translate two Greek words as "hell." The first is Hades, where the human spirits of the lost go after physical death, and second is Gehenna, where, presumably, the lake of fire exists. Two very different places, so to translate them as the same place creates confusion. If your bible says "hell" you need to put "H' next to it when the actual text reads Hades, and put a "G" next to it when the actual text reads Gehenna.
This thread is very much a bait and switch thread, with its title speaking about dispensationalism, but the thread simply smearing the concept with a guilt by association unsupported assertion.
A big problem with Traditional Dispensationalism is that both groups, believing Jews, and believing Gentiles, are on group under the New Covenant. See Galatians chapter 3 if you do not understand this truth. Now if you want to argue for Covenant Theology over and against progressive dispensationalism, have at it.
Katarina Von Bora
Active Member
I am not interested in your words, because you have no foundation.
I doubt very seriously that Ray Comfort would approve of the things you have said. Want to find out?
You're starting to sound desperate! I've been warned that you don't want to quote scripture. This explains why you cannot provide any scripture to support your egregious statements.
You produced the OP. It is YOUR burden of proof, not mine.