Dispensationalism - Sine Qua Non 1 of 3, a Israel and Church Distinction

[rjprince]

Notice, Galatians chapter 3 is not discuss about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It speaks of individual of any races who have faith in Jesus Christ, so, they are belong to Abraham's seed which is Christ's.

Gal 3:7-8
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Part of the Abrahamic Covenant provided for salvation to "the heathen". These Gentiles who are saved by faith are the children of God and the seed of Abraham. THEY ARE NEVER CALLED THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL! My children are not the children of my Grandfather. They are related, but they are not his children. His children are my great aunts and uncles, except for my Dad. We are related but I am not his children and his children are not me. The seed of my grandfather includes me, but my seed is not the same as the seed of my cousins. Again, we are related, but we are not the same.

Salvation comes to the Gentiles through the provision of the Abrahamic Covenant, but Gentiles are not PARTY to the AC. The AC was to the physical seed of Abraham, through Isaac, and through Jacob. The AC was not to the Church, even though the blessings promised to Abraham and his posterity spill over to the Gentiles.

Same with Ephesians chapter 2 is not discuss about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It talks about Calvary draw all people of the world on Christ. Salvation is for everyone. Christ already tore down the wall between Jews and Gentiles, reconciled both became ONE in Christ. No more divided within the body of Christ again forever and ever.

Ditto to both you and Ed. Eph 2:15 says that in Christ both Jew and Gentile are made into "one new man" (not old Israel, but the church), reconciled unto God in one body, a new household of God built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. The church is built on Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets (cf Eph 4:11). Israel was not built on Jesus, the apostles and the prophets. The foundation for Israel was "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom 9:6). How could Israel have been built on the foundation of Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets? Jesus had not yet come!

Within the body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile are made one. Salvation is for everyone. The middle wall of partition has been removed. One in the body of Christ, the Church – NOT ISRAEL.

During Christ's ministry on earth. Christ told Pharisees, God is going to take it to 'another nation', because of their reject Christ.
Same with Romans chapter 11 tells us, God removed unbelieving Jews from tree, but leave believing Jews on this tree. God just grafted Gentiles unto the tree join with believing Jews, SO, therefore, 'All Israel shall be saved' shall be completed at second coming.

Tree represents the family of God. Jews cut off for unbelief. Gentiles added by belief. After the times of the Gentiles, ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED.

But, I understand Romans 11:25-26 could be speak of Calvary at Christ's first advent. Christ came out of Zion(heaven) came down to earth and he died on the cross, so, he forgived all people's sins through his blood. And He said, 'It is finished'.

First advent? How could Paul speak of it as yet future? Rom 11:25 clearly speaks of Israel, not the church, see posts to Benjamin...

At the same time, the veil of the temple was torn down while Christ yelled, 'It is finished". It shew that, we do not need physical temple and physical daily sacrifices anymore. Christ is our temple and sacrifice.

We can approach God directly. We do not need sacrifices or the temple, not now.

Also, Romans chapter 11 is not deal about physical nation or ethnic nation either. It talks about individuals both Gentiles and Jews who have faith in Christ, are share on the same tree. And 'Olive Tree' is clearly pictured of Jesus Christ.

WHAT?!?!?!?! How can Rom 11 NOT be talking about national ISREAL?!?!?! Read the passages and try to force "faithful" in the place of Israel. NONSENSE!

Like as John chapter 15 speaks of 'Vine'. Christ is the vine. Anyone is in 'Vine' or 'Olive Tree', they are belong to Christ.

OT Saints did not have a relationship with Christ. He had not yet come. John 15 speaks of the vine, but the vine and the olive tree are not the same.

God only have one family.

Yes, now Jew and Gentile are one in the church. It was not so in the OT and God will deal with Israel as a nation at the end of the times of the Gentiles (Rom 11:25-27; Luke 21:24).

Do you think there is divided in heaven?

Not sure exactly what the relationship will be like in Heaven. Used to answer that question with a yes, but not sure we can be dogmatic on that one. Still working on it. So, I guess the answer to that question is "I do not know."

Suppose, dispensationalism is correct, then there is divided in the heaven.

Do not agree that a recognition of the difference between Israel and the church necessarily requires that there be a division of the two in Heaven. CERTAINLY, the Jews and the Gentiles who are ONE in the Church, the Body of Christ will NOT be divided in heaven. A far as their relationship to the Jews of the OT and the MK, I am not as sure as I once thought I was....

I do not believe in the divided in the heaven. There is NO divided in heaven.

We will have to wait to find out, IMO.

Also, Revelation chapter 21 gives a perfect example of New Jerusalem. It shows of 12 walls round around New Jerusalem are represents 12 disciples as New Testament saints, and 12 gates round around New Jerusalem are represent 12 tribes of Israel as Old Testament saints. This scene shows us, all are unity together in one city. God only have one family.

Not sure how we all blend together there. One thing that bothers me is why don’t my wife and I live in the same house? It does not bother me to admit that I am not sure how it all works out. God just did not tell us everything about it, only what He thought we needed to know. I can live with that. I do not like it, but I can live with it.

Notice Matthew 25:31-46 telling us the clear scense show us there are only two classes at Christ's coming. One on left side - goats are represent unsaved(either Jew or Gentile), and another one on right side- sheep are represent saved(either Jew or Gentile). Matt. 25:46 simple telling us, all goats go into everlasting punishment(lake of fire); and all sheep go into eternal life. Very simple and plain.

Very bad idea to establish doctrine from parables.

Dispensationalism creates complex teaching to make the body of Christ into divided.

Maybe some do, I don’t.

Also, dispensationalism is a 'another gospel', because it teaching different plans of salvation in different periods. Bible teaches us, there is only ONE plan of salvation of all ages by base on 'Faith' only, plus nothing other else.

MOST DO NOT TEACH TWO WAYS OF SALVATION. A FEW DID, BUT MOST DID NOT. I KNOW OF NO CURRENT DISPIE WHO TEACHES SALVATION BY WORKS OR LAW!!! DO YOU? OR ARE YOU JUST REPEATING WHAT OTHERS HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT DISPIES?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dispensationalism creates complex teaching
to make the body of Christ into divided.

Maybe some do, I don’t.

Also, dispensationalism is a 'another gospel', because it teaching different plans of salvation in different periods. Bible teaches us, there is only ONE plan of salvation of all ages by base on 'Faith' only, plus nothing other else.

MOST DO NOT TEACH TWO WAYS OF SALVATION.
A FEW DID, BUT MOST DID NOT. I KNOW OF NO
CURRENT DISPIE WHO TEACHES SALVATION BY
WORKS OR LAW!!! DO YOU? OR ARE YOU JUST
REPEATING WHAT OTHERS HAVE TOLD YOU ABOUT DISPIES?

Please note, Brother Rjprince, that some of my posts were written
to difuse these strawmen. I wish people would argue against
my statements (or yours) instead of against people who aren't
even in the conversation

 

[rjprince]

Please note, Brother Rjprince, that some of my posts were written
to difuse these strawmen. I wish people would argue against my statements (or yours) instead of against people who aren't even in the conversation

Thanks Ed, most of the people who argue against Dispensationalism have never really worked through Ryrie's book by that title. All some do is repeat the same tired arguments that CTs have been leveling against Ds for years. Let's take a fresh look at the Scriptures and as I admonished Ben earlier, let's be willing to state the other persons position in terms that accurately represent what his position really is.

THAT is the essence of ethical and profitable debate. Not everyone always wants that. Sometimes all we care about is defending our own position, no matter what the Bible says. I have certainly been there before. Now I just don't care! I want to line up with the Bible, not Ryrie, or Chafer, or McClain, or Scofield, or Pentecost, or Kent, etc, etc, etc.


(Added upon edit...)

The reason they deal with what others have said about D is that it is easier than arguing with us. We are here to defend ourselves!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Some doubt hardly any Gentiles will be saved
during the Tribulation Period...

Not me! Not based on what I read
in the Word. A great multitude of Gentiles!

(Brother Rjprince then quotes Revelation 7:9-14)

IMHO the unnumberable multitude cannot be those
saved during the Tribulation Period. There are slightly
over six Billion people on the earth today.
If the Pretribulation rapture were to take place today,
there would be something less than six Billion to
inhabit the Tribulation Period. So one can number the
ones saved during the Tribulation Period.

What cannot be numbered is all the
Old Testament Saints that will be Resurrected;
the deadJewish/Israelil saved, and the Church Age Gentiles
dead that will be resurrected;
the living Jewish/Israelil saved, and the living Church Age Gentiles
saved that will be raptured.
This is the unnumberable crowd gathered around
God's Throne -- all the saved to the time of the
pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

 

[rjprince]

(Brother Rjprince then quotes Revelation 7:9-14)

IMHO the unnumberable multitude cannot be those saved during the Tribulation Period....

...This is the unnumberable crowd gathered around God's Throne -- all the saved to the time of the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

That is NOT what the text says! How can you dismiss the clear words of the text -- "these are they which came out of the the great tribulation". Literally, "came out of the tribulation, the great one".

 

[Ed Edwards]

One reason I think that not many Gentiles
will be saved during the Tribulation Period:

Rev 9:18-21 (KJV1611 Edition):
By these three was the third part of men killed,
by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone
which issued out of their mouthes.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tailes:
for their tailes were like vnto serpents, and had heads,
and with them they doe hurt.
20 And the rest of the men which were not killed
by these plagues, yet repented not of the works
of their hands, that they should not worship deuils,
and idoles of golde, and siluer, and brasse,
and stone, and of wood, which neither can see,
nor heare, nor walke:
21 Neither repented they of their murders,
nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication,
nor of their thefts.

Why I think most of the Jewish/Israeli saints
(most of whom get converted during the mid-tribulation
period crisis) will be saved through the last half
of the Tribulation Period:

Rev 12:13-14 (KJV1611 Edition):
And when the dragon saw that he was cast vnto the earth,
hee persecuted the woman which brought foorth the man childe.
Rev 12:14 And to the woman were giuen two wings
of a great Eagle, that shee might flee into
the wildernesse into her place, where she is nourished
for a time, and times, and halfe a time,
from the face of the serpent.

The Serpent is the Satan, the Lead Devil;
the 'woman which brought foorth the man childe'
is Israel; the man childe is Messiah Yeshua;
'a time, and times, and halfe a time,' = 2+1+½=3½-years -
the last half of Daniel's 70th week, the last ½ of the Tribulation
Period.

 

[rjprince]

Ed,

Some good points. Not only do they refuse to repent, but in chap 16 they begin to "blaspheme the God of Heaven".

I recognize that following the sixth trumpet there is a great hardness in the hearts of the "earthdwellers", but that does not mean that there are not some times of great revival.

The only way I can deal with the clear wording of 7:9 & 14 is to see that there are at least some times during the outpouring of God's wrath, there is also an outpouring of His grace.

It really bothers me if there is a passage that does not fit with my position, so much so that I will either find a reasonable way to reconcile the passages or change my position!

 

[Ed Edwards]

I came out of Vietnam. I lived through Vietnam.
I was in the Air Force of the USofA
1963-1967. I got Veteran College assistance getting
degrees in 1969 and 1975.
I tracked cargo planes going into Vietnam, I tracked cargo
planes coming out of Vietnam, I never went to Vietnam -
I came out of Vietnam. I'm still alive. And when I
get old and my kids want to send me to the old folks
home -- I've got a reservation at the Veteran's Center
in the same town I live in which I live in Exciting Central Oklahoma.
I came out of Vietnam - I'm a survivor of Vietnam & have
all the rights and privilages thereof.

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by rjprince:
Notice how you shift the focus from the meaning of Israel and her ethnic identity to their wrong belief that their ethnic identity somehow provided for their salvation. But then of course, you have to shift the focus since your position will not allow you read the text as it stands. I have read NO DISPIES who claim that Israel’s ethnic identity guaranteed their salvation! IN A FUTURE DAY, their ethnic identity will be a factor in God regathering them to Himself and putting His law in their hearts, when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled and when He fulfills His covenant to "take away their sins". At that time, "ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" – not, on the basis of their own righteousness, but on the basis of His sovereign grace in calling them to Himself. This is the plain teaching of Scripture! No way you can read Rom 11:25-29 and get anything else from the text!

Then also notice the pot calling the kettle black as I consider this futurist doctrine that apparently DOES guarantee a ethnic identity salvation plainly as double-talk and the forced grace doctrine that it would take to complete as nonsense in holding to that position! The text says, “all Israel” it doesn’t say, “all Israel after some point in time”.

No, it is you who attempted to shift the focus on to the appeal of OT quotes, when those are not the determining issue. Concerning Romans 11 Paul explicitly says that Israel will be saved by breaking off unbelievers and grafting in believers. The following quotes 25-29 are intended to support what he just said, not to change it the way you must attempt to change it to support your position.

And the major shift of focus that I see is you’re adding in the Calvinist dogmas! I see also this continues below, talk about shifting the focus; (I do see that C would line up well with D for you, as a matter of fact am starting to wonder how a Non-C could come to your conclusions) but give me a break here, I have no desire to get into the C/A scuffle, (as most certainly the gloves would come off) the “root” problems with Calvinism in another tread.

Originally posted by rjprince:
As far as John the Baptist is concerned and his statement concerning Abraham, stones, and the ax, there is nothing there that removes Israel from her place of blessing as God’s chosen nation! Stop reading into the text! All it says is that they should not expect their national heritage to keep the judgment of God from falling upon them! God could raise up seed to Abraham from the rocks, if He wanted to. No record that He did, or even said that He would, only that He could. He did promise to raise up a valley of dry bones and cover them with sinew and flesh, AND THEN put His Spirit within them. Guess who that would be? "These bones are the whole house of Israel" – Isa 37:10. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR READING THAT AS "CHURCH"!!!

John the Baptist revealed …so you can stop dividing away from the meaning in the text!; John the Baptist was not only telling them to not even to BEGIN to think their national heritage could save them (glad we have that one straightened out) but that the actual form of “judgment” is also being revealed. Yeah baby, the axe has been laid to those roots and old way of thinking! Not only that, but in this it is made clear, that “EVERY” TREE that doesn’t bring forth good fruit… There is only ONE WAY to bring forth good fruit…their sacrifices NEVER did save them but they were saved by their FAITH, not the blood of bulls and goats, (Heb 10:4) but the all the same as ALL TRUE ISRAEL, by being BAPTIZED in the Spirit of Christ (1Cor 10-1-4, the ONLY WAY to bring forth good fruit is in the spirit by faith, John 15) the only thing that has changed here (in that time) is the ministration of that spirit (2Cor 3:8-11) by the content in which they believed on. Moses had a veil over his face, and the children of Israel (those that would be saved by faith/being faithful) were blinded to the coming and ABOLISHING of their own blood works and thoughts of heritage.

I think you need to stop dreaming just as they did 2000 years ago and quit trying to hold on to this revelation as something that retains some “special” status by heritage. THERE IS ABSOLULUELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR DIVIDING THEM AWAY FROM THE CHURCH as far as I have seen, when comparing the context of these passages as part of the whole!

Originally Posted by Benjamin
Amen, Ruth has become part of the church by faith in God, not by joining an ethnic club! Her presence in the genealogy of Christ shows she became a daughter of Israel and Abraham by faith in God, and you now want to divide your definition to not include Ruth genetically? The promise was "to thy seed" meaning Abrahams, and Ruth was added in to this. Seems you’re trying to have it both ways here.

Originally posted by rjprince:
What are you talking about? Ruth became a JEW! I did not divide it genetically! As a Gentile, she embraced the land, the people, the culture and the GOD of Israel and became a Jew! She did not join an ethnic club!

If you can’t respond to my arguments, just twist them into something you can respond to, but, don’t expect me not to point out your error. You said, "Ruth became part of the church", nonsense! The only way you can get that is by redefining your terms according to CT! You can’t find that in the Word of God!

EXCUSE ME?!?
Bolding by me:

Originally posted by rjprince:
Ruth did not genetically become a Jew, but she became a Jew in every other way! "whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16).

On second thought decided my response to this accusation may not be profitable to this discussion. Think maybe it would be easier considering the present circumstances if we were to just cut Ruth in half! :BangHead:

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by rjprince:
"ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED" that is pretty plain. All of the Jews living at that time shall be drawn irresistibly to embrace the Messiah that their ancestors crucified (Zech 12:10). Is that to big of a problem for your God? Not for mine! GOD COULD SAVE ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE IF THAT WAS HIS PLAN!!! IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR HIM! HE PLAINLY DECLARES THAT ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED, PERIOD.

(SPECIAL NOTE HERE: THIS IS NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IN CALVINISM, or the meaning of "ALL" in some other passage for those who may be tempted to do so. My point is that God declares HERE that He will SAVE ALL ISRAEL. If you are going to object, please do so from a passage that concerns the salvation of Israel following the fullness of the Gentiles.)

You’ve opened up yet another can of worms here that I may address in some detail when/if time permits concerning the fullness of the Gentiles. In the mean time when are you going to show me a New Testament text that speaks of the restoration of the Kingdom to the Jews?

Originally Posted by Benjamin
First you help make my point, you understand Israel to refer to national ethnic group, but many other definitions are possible:
1) Jacob, who was renamed Israel by God
2) Jacob’s descendants
3) The congregation in Egypt, including the "mixed multitude" not descendants of Jacob
4) The united monarchy
5) The northern kingdom during the divided monarchy
6) The name of the nation of Jews after the return from the Babylonian exile

Originally posted by rjprince:
And you were doing so good! Then you had to go and say...

Originally Posted by Benjamin
7) The Church

ROFL… I knew that would get your goat!

Originally posted by rjprince:

OK. Good idea, every place where Israel or Israelite appears in the book of Romans...

This is how you would have me read it...

I said to apply YOUR definition, meaning within contextual sense, not try to twist around what you erroneously perceive to be MY definitions.

Originally posted by rjprince:

And you think that makes sense?

Now, let’s try it my way

Originally posted by rjprince:

Funny how my way (the Bible way) makes sense and yours does not. Was that a jab? or a left hook?

You are the one who brought up the black eye thing! All in good humor, but if you do not appreciate it, please, just let me know and I will stick to the text. OK.

My eyes are still open and doubting your confidence. Just watch out that I don’t get a grip on you while you’re doing all the duck and weave.


I said to apply YOUR definition and stay in context, not try to twist around and use what you wish to perceive to be MY definitions to be. I said to tie it into the context of Romans before and after the verses you gave of (Romans 10:1,21 and 11:2,7-8) and see how that fits in-between Romans 9:6 and 11:26. OH! I see below that is becoming difficult to stay within context, thereby making my straight clean jab rack up some points after all, despite the fact that you temporarily lost your sense of focus and started swinging wildly:

Originally posted by rjprince:
I will acknowledge that Rom 9:6 is a bit difficult. But it does not read any better from either side.
It must be an enigmatic way of saying that just because a person is a Jew by birth, does not make him a Jew by faith.

So now you’re starting to sound all spiritualizy; is it a mystery about keeping this division? Is there another way to be saved other than faith? Let’s not ever forget that all Israel is saved in 11:26! Paul’s argument still holds from 9:6 “For they are not all Israel, which are Israel” as yet another declaration (let’s not forget John the Baptist -Mat 3:9-10) that pedigree has nothing to do with salvation.

Originally posted by rjprince:
Whatever you do with it, IT CLEARLY DOES NOT SAY that God has forgotten His covenant with Israel because some have disbelieved. Rom 11 makes it clear that He has not.

I’ll do this with THAT:

1) One must believe/have faith to be saved, PERIOD!!! Rom 11 speaks of unbelievers being cut off.

2) You haven’t stayed within context of Romans between 9:6 and 11:26 to get a clear understanding from the whole of scripture, you divide by what it doesn’t say!

3) I’m talking about what the context DOES say/confirm, and that is that ethnic heritage ain’t never gonna save nobody, “the Bible way” is that ALL that are saved, are saved by faith.

There is only one definition that will work in Romans 9:6 and it isn’t “Jew”… For they are not all [Jews], which are of [Jews], Nonsense! The definition contains the subject of belief/unbelief and thereby regarding salvation in the term “Israel” to not include ALL in the sense of heritage. Paul is saying “who” applies, as in the unbelievers are cut out and believers are grafted in.

Originally posted by rjprince:
EVERYBODY WHO HAS EVER BEEN SAVED HAS AT SOME POINT BEEN IN THE CONDITION OF BEING "WITHOUT FAITH". The faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God that none should boast. NNE COMES TO GOD BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE WORTHY OR MORE RIGHTEOUS THAN THOSE WHO DO NOT! WE ONLY COME TO GOD ON THE BASIS OF HIS GRACE!!! NEVER OUR OWN FAITHFULNESS!!! God draws us all to Himself! Any reason why He could not chose to save "all Israel" just as the text states? (Free willers, please stay out of this one and debate it on other threads.)

STACKING THE DECK NOW?!? With more Calvinist dogma? Let me tell you that I am MUCH stronger in my non-Calvinist position than in eschatology, BUT I am not willing to go there and mix this into the discussion (too many hot sparks to contend with); IF we have hit a point where there can be no agreement as to how ALL Israel could possibly be saved being based on this issue of faith, then so be it. Simply, my position is ALL that those who were influenced and did not respond in faith during ANY time are not saved, they are NOT the elect, and God will not force ANYBODY into His grace contained under the proposed Calvie definitions of His sovereignty.

Now, this is the THIRD time you have attempted to bring this in while also telling others to debate it on another tread, and THIS, after starting out telling ME to “notice the shift in focus” AND the “special note” of not using the C opportunity (which is not a benefit to you in my eyes). Relax champ, breathe in---breathe out… breathe in---breathe out…

 

[Benjamin]

Originally posted by rjprince:
WHAT!!! "...the real Israel is a spiritual community, not a physical one..." WHAT!!! That is not what the text says! That is not even what the text implies, not even remotely! Again, go back and try to read all of the Romans passages that way. What it says is that not all Jews by birth are Jews by faith. There will be some Jews in hell. Is there some reason why you think I believe differently? Other than reading it the way you want so you are able to argue against it?

I think maybe you don’t like being pinned down on a definition, eh? Well, if it says, “that not all Jews by birth are Jews by faith” then Israel consists of those of faith (at least the saved ones), yet, you cling to the ethnic nation of “Jews” as your definition of Israel. The same time you claim ALL the Israel to be saved as having an ethnic heritage, meaning Jew.


Here’s your definition “a national ethnic group” “physical seed of Abraham” to which it was included in your definition “the unfaithful in Israel” now what I don’t get is these, to use your term “Jews”, that are unfaithful which now you are telling me that “some” will be in hell is how these “Jews” are ALL going to be saved??? Still appears to me you’re trying to have it both ways.

Originally posted by rjprince:
Let's do this: I will try to restate your position in a manner that you will agree is a fair representation of what you believe. AND, you try to state my position in a way that is a fair representation of what you understand me to believe. It will save a lot of time, and avoid a lot of needless and pointless banter.

Sounds like it could be a set up to me, a debate tactic, maybe one that involves a kind of like arguing in reverse, hey! I might be good at that…but maybe not. Trying to change the field maybe? Do you have experience with this stating another’s opinion till you get them to agree and then tearing it down? I don’t know about this, I’ll have to think about it.


I’ve been trying to pin you down on a logical viable definition and now you want to put yet another twist on the format. Oops, on second thought it may be too late, I already did it I think with my view of your two-sided definition above.

Originally posted by rjprince:
Where do you get "spiritual Israel"? Let’s deal in terms and concepts that are Biblical, OK. NOT Covenant, and NOT DISPENSATIONAL EITHER. Can we agree to do that?

The same place you get “ethnic national Israel” apparently; Really RJ, I fail to see this type of agreement not weighing heavily on the side of YOUR idea of Biblical concepts being more valued than mine as per only your beliefs being attached to these type rules. But, will take this into consideration.

BTW, I wouldn’t take you as the type to be sensitive to a bit of bantering considering your forceful authoritive tones, but if it is bothering you I can, and will, lighten up.


Bro, just to let you know I have no problem with your tone as long as you have no problem with me not being bullied by it, or IOW (for lack of better words) held subservient to/by it.


If you want to tell me what I think, you go right on ahead, and I’ll be sure to tell you when you’re wrong. :thumbs:


Ben

BTW, RJ, I’d suggest not throwing everything into the pot at once might be helpful. And so that we better understand each other; I realize that you do not like the counters of what you call “CT” system in which I envision your lip curling up when you say the very word.

Personally, I was bombarded with the teachings of dispensationalism early on even before any serious study of eschatology, before reading any commentaries, and throughout all the enthusiasm by others to program me into this systematic way of interpreting the “Bible way” I saw nothing but continual red flags popping up that did not line up with scripture the way I saw it and found the systematic methods of divisions, frankly, as absolutely repulsive and damaging, often calling to mind Col 2:8 which words are written on my heart.

Continuing to be frank, I understand that you have read many theologians on the subject but you can not tell me that you have not been influenced by their systematic principles that you have spent many years studying and that it has not left an impression on you that will come through in discussion. You will not tell me that my views do not follow Biblical concepts as that it where my view came from and continues to grow in; and to do so is guaranteed to meet with conflict. I admittedly have read many commentaries on the subject during research and some of what I have read that line up with my beliefs will certainly come out in my thoughts and words as so with you, though of course not to the degree as per experiences. At this point in my study I do not even like to read complete systematic theories from individual authors as it is too much at once to build on and it doesn’t take me long to start seeing faults and no need to continue in the errors from ANY proclaimed complete system that I have ever explored. My Bible is the only trustworthy Book I can count on and this with the guidance of the HS that will faithfully lead me where I have the ability to go; I read the books of men with great suspicion and generally find them the vast majority on subjects such as these very arrogant and distastefully overconfident leading me to give them the boot before even finishing, and sometimes considering burning them. Ha-ha

I do not have a complete system worked out in an eschatological view and seriously doubt that I ever will, and understand I am in good company with some very godly men on this. I do know that I do not see a distinction between the Church and Israel but see them enjoined through the message of good news brought together throughout the whole of scripture, and if that labels me as “CT”… fine. Further, in my personal thoughts which I’m sure might sound as harsh against dispensationalism to you, as yours do to me against the CT way of thought, are that dispensationalism is an intellectual prideful system of force to fit that is used to complete that very system of belief and involves the containment of interpretational rules designed to limit ones ability to come to spiritual understandings that may disagree with the ever-growing prideful intellectualism that is involved in it of which I will never adopt as my only prescribed correct method to interpret scripture. This said, any efforts to dictate to me how to interpret scripture by rule of systematic dispensational design will be met with dissention and considered no less than suspect in agenda.

I enjoy picking your brain, knowing of your vast knowledge in the subject, and knowing where you stand on distinction I am curious as to how you might arrive at some of your conclusions, but I am not in for a lesson in what is appropriate terms and concepts any more than you are.

Have fun at the wedding and stay OFF the dance floor as much as possible!

 

[rjprince]

BENHAMIIN,

Some great posts brother! Can't wait to get back into the ring! May have a little time tomorrow while my wife picks up a few things for my daughter and I wait in the car. (I just love my wireless internet connection for my notebook! Internet anywhere I have a cell signal!)

dispensationalism is an intellectual prideful system of force to fit that is used to complete that very system of belief and involves the containment of interpretational rules designed to limit ones ability to come to spiritual understandings that may disagree with the ever-growing prideful intellectualism that is involved in it of which I will never adopt as my only prescribed correct method to interpret scripture. This said, any efforts to dictate to me how to interpret scripture by rule of systematic dispensational design will be met with dissention and considered no less than suspect in agenda.

that was really good, I like it! do not agree, but it was still REALLY GOOD!

I do not dance. But my daughter insists that I do one dance with her. It ought to be a hoot! Talk about ROFL...

Later