Dispensationalism

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The New Covenant not only is inaugerated, it is in force

Then why don't the descendants of those whom God led by the hand out of Egypt, who later turned against him have a new heart to follow him? Why aren't they living in the land in peace? Are you saying that God lied when he said those things were a part of the NC?

Paul33:

Some of them do have a new heart. His disciples have a new heart. 3000 at Pentecost had a new heart. The spiritual descendants of Abraham have a new heart. All of God's people will some day dwell in the land with God in complete safety and peace.

I am so glad that I am included in the New Covenant and share in its blessings!

Which of your ancestors was led out of Egypt by the hand?

Paul33:

None that I know of! That's what makes the New Covenant so great! Because of the New Covenant and the Great Commission, my family is included with the people of God!

Maybe if you studied a little harder, starting with what the Scriptures teach and not what the Scofield Bible teaches, you might understand!

The ironic thing is that I have never read Scofield's notes. I don't appeal to Scofield. I encourage people not to use Scofield. I have focused my attention on Scripture, and tried to get you to, but you won't for some reason.

Paul33:

Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord. Pick you poison.

I see you wont' deal with the words of Peter or Jesus. Is that because there hermeneutic is bad.

Where did you see that? I have dealt with teh words of both of them.

Paul33:

When? You deny what they say every time.

Peter thought the New Covenant was not only inaugerated but in force!

Where?

Paul33:

When Christ appeared to him. When he preached from Joel. When the fire of the Holy Spirit fell upon him.

So did Paul.

Where?

Paul33:

When he met him on the road to Damascus. When he wrote Romans and Galatians.

You have yet to show me one place in Scripture where the church and Israel are said to be distinct to the point of excluding each other.

Yes I have. I have appealed to you to deal with Roman 9-11, particular the first part of 9 where Paul declares that true Israel is a subset of ethnic Isreal, and teh last part of 11 where Paul contrasts Israel and the church. But you, so far, have refused. If you read those passages, you will see that Israel cannot be the church. It becomes absurd if you try to make Israel the church. I have shown from the NC itself that Israel is defined by a very specific group of people.

You want me to show where they are distinct (which I have done many times), but you won't show where they are the same because you can't. EVery passage you appeal to requires the presupposition that they are the same.

Paul33:

Funny, no where in Romans 9-11 does it mention the church as distinct from Israel. It talks about Gentile believers being grafted in because of the disbelief of "some" of Israel.

You don't get it. I've never once said that Israel (in its totality) is the same as the church (in its totality). But believing true Israel is in the church, the people of God in which believing Gentiles are now a part.

You stick to your hermeneutic, and I will stick to the words of Jesus to his disciples in Matthew 24 and Luke 17; and Peter's sermon from the text of Joel!

So if Peter used Joel as you say, then God lied, because what God said, and what Peter quoted didn't come to pass. There were no great cosmic signs. You want to use Scripture when it suits you, but you refuse to deal with what God said without importing your own position. That is completely illegitimate and leads to the nonsensical position you are tryign to defend. And all teh while you attack me. I have said only what Jesus said. I have said only what Peter, Paul, and the apostle said. Your problem is not with me or dispensationalism. Your problem is with them. </font>[/QUOTE]Paul33:

You aren't that naive. Prophecy can be fulfilled in stages and you know it. The last days began with the ascension of Jesus to the Father's right hand and will be consumated with his return to earth to establish his kingdom on earth in great glory and power. The signs are yet to come, but they will come because the New Covenant has commenced. So says the Apostle Peter!

 

[Paul33]

Larry, you keep implying that we are so simple minded and unable to grasp the deep truths of the Word of God.

That's the fallacy of dispensationalism. It requires "experts" and years of "deep study" to know what the Scriptures teach.

It only took 1800 years for a young lady to have a vision of the end times, which was later adopted by Darby to come up with the theory of dispensationalism. Before that, all of the early church fathers, the Nicene Fathers, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, etc., none of them believed in dispensationalism.

It truly is deep for it to have remained hidden for so long. We are lucky to have you as our guide.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Some of them do have a new heart. His disciples have a new heart. 3000 at Pentecost had a new heart. The spiritual descendants of Abraham have a new heart. All of God's people will some day dwell in the land with God in complete safety and peace.

He didn't say "some." He was referring to the nation. You are changing what the text says in order to fit your theology, as I have pointed out before.

Which of your ancestors was led out of Egypt by the hand?

Paul33:

None that I know of! That's what makes the New Covenant so great! Because of the New Covenant and the Great Commission, my family is included with the people of God!

Notice again how you have changed the NC promise. It was given to a particular group of people of whom you admit you are not a part, and then you have the audacity to include yourself anyway. That makes no theological or exegetical sense. Again, we have to focus on what the text says, not what is convenient for our theological position.

When? You deny what they say every time.

Such as?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Peter thought the New Covenant was not only inaugerated but in force!

Where?

Paul33:

When Christ appeared to him. When he preached from Joel. When the fire of the Holy Spirit fell upon him.</font>[/QUOTE]None of which are connected with the NC, and his use of Joel completely disproves your notion because what Joel said did not come to pass. It is clear that Peter was drawing a similarity, not an identity ... unless of course, God didn't really mean these great cosmic events would happen, in which case we question why he said them.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So did Paul.

Where?

Paul33:

When he met him on the road to Damascus. When he wrote Romans and Galatians.</font>[/QUOTE]Again, at the risk of pointing out the obvious (which you could get from the text without my help), none of those occasions talk about the NC.

Funny, no where in Romans 9-11 does it mention the church as distinct from Israel.

You obviously have never paid much attention to the text. Rom 9 argues very clearly that Israel is ethnic Israel, not a combination of ethnic Isreal and Gentiles. Rom 11:25ff, very clearly show a distinction between Isreal and the church, and that "we" the church benefit from their "Israel's" hardening. If that is not a distinction then words mean nothing.

But believing true Israel is in the church, the people of God in which believing Gentiles are now a part.

And dispensationalists don't dispute that, which you should know if you have read and studied as much as you claim. No one disputes that Jews and Gentiles are the one people of God for this age. Paul makes that explicitly clear in Galatians, right before he draws a distinction in 6:16 between Israel and the church. He also makes it clear in Ephesians 2. But none of that removes the promise of God for the future of national Israel, when he will bring the NC to completion by bringing a national repentance and salvation to Isreal when the look on their Messiah whom they pierced.

You aren't that naive.

You aren't either. So don't play like it.

Prophecy can be fulfilled in stages and you know it.

Obviously, but not the issue.

ish his kingdom on earth in great glory and power. The signs are yet to come, but they will come because the New Covenant has commenced. So says the Apostle Peter!

And where did Peter say anything about the NC already being in force? Do you have passages in your Bible that I don't have? Again, we have to focus on Scripture rather than on our pet theologies. We have to look at what the text actually says. And that is where your side falls far short. We, on this side, have way too many poor exegetes, bad preachers, stupid ideas, and the like. But that doesn't change the truth of Scripture. And that is why I consistently refuse to talk about those things and try to focus our attention on what Scripture actually says.

 

[exscentric]

"It only took 1800 years for a young lady to have a vision of the end times, which was later adopted by Darby to come up with the theory of dispensationalism."

This has been around a day or two.

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/pretrib.shtml may be of interest ----- or not.

I've seen other similar refutations of the "vision" that is often put forth.

[ July 08, 2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: exscentric ]

 

[Paul33]

Larry,

When did this "age" begin and when will it end?

Also, just a side question. I would be very interested in knowing where you attended college and seminary.

Thanks.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Excentric, Dispensationalism is not basedon a vision someone had. It is based on Scripture. There is a lot of misinformation about it that is circulating around, all of which avoids the discussion of Scripture that we should be having.

Paul, This "age" of the church began at Pentecost and will end at the Rapture. The "last days" are roughly synonymous with that, though in my view extend slightly longer. I think we all agree on that for the most part. The question is the timing of the rapture. In our past discussions in PMs, I have answered both of your other questions.

 

[Paul33]

I'm sorry, Larry, but you must be confusing me with somone else. I don't recall PM's with you. But if we have, I'm sorry. I don't remember.

 

[Paul33]

What relationship does "Israel" have with and to this "age" of the church?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Israel as a nation has been set aside for this age because of their rejection of the Messiah. But as Paul says, Law did not annul the promise, and as Zechariah and John said, there is coming a day when Israel will see him whom they pierced and will mourn for him in repentance. Then God will restore their fortunes. That is when the NC will take full affect.

Jews who accept the Messiah in this age are a part of the body of Christ, as Paul says in Gal and Eph.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Larry,

You really have a problem with 'age' of your view or beliefs in the Bible.

For example in Matthew chapter 24, disciples asked Christ, what will be the signs of the end of the world(age)?

These signs are occuring in our present age right now.

Bible teaches us, there are only two ages. Present age where we are dwelling on this old planet earth with sinful and temporary.

Last days already began at Pentacost day. Last days will be done ON the last day at Christ's coming of John 5:27-29; John 6:39,40,44, & 54.

Right now, I am so very tired from work 3rd shift last night.

Next week, I will present many verses to show the comparing of 'present age' & 'next age to come'.

Pretribs really have problem with Matthew 24, because Christ told them very clear that He will coime back after the tribulation of Matt. 24:29-31. Christ does not saying he will come back before tribulation. No way you can find a verse anywhere in Matthew 24 saying that Christ shall come before tribulation.

Impossible for you to find a hint in Matthew 24 telling there shall be two comings or split comings, because Christ never saying there shall be two comings to His disciples.

Common for pretribs to pick two verses out of Matthew 24 context, like as they often cited Matt. 24:36, and 42, they saying it is "pretrib" verse.

No way that you can prove it is pretrib.

Let you know, amills agree with pretribs, that Christ shall come anytime in our lifetime. That does not mean it is proof of pretrib doctrine.

Matt. 24:36 & 42 telling us the purpose that it motive us that we ought to live right, be watch and sober be ready for Christ's coming, because we do not know when we will die or Christ comes. We must always be ready all the times. Because we all shall face the judgment seat of Christ to judge our works. No way that we shall escape from the judgement day. That why we must always be ready all the times.

Proving pretrib in the Bible is very flaw and weak, because there is none verse show clear crystal in the Bible saying Christ shall come before tribulation.

Matt. 24:29-31 is the clearest passage that Christ shall come right after tribulation.

Many pretribs know Matt. 24:29-31 saying Christ is coming back right tribulation, pretribs agree with Matt. 24:29-31. Yet, pretribs saying Matt. 24:29-31 is not talking about rapture. also, many pretribs deny the clear comparing of Matt. 24:29-31 with 1 Thess 4:14-17 both are fit together perfectly.

Myself notice pretribbers doing their guessworks by their own interpreting Bible by showing the 'proof' verses of pretrib rapture too much.

I rather accept what the Bible actual saying, believe it and follow it than wrestle it. Why cannot you agree and follow what the Bible simple saying?

Next week, I will show you many verses on the comparing between 'present age', & 'age to come'.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why cannot you agree and follow what the Bible simple saying?

I am asking you the same question. HEre's the difference: I can support everything I say dogmatically from the text, and give good reasons for things I am not dogmatic about. You cannot.

I don't know what your issue is with "present age" or "age to come." First, those aren't the only two ages in Scripture. Paul talks about past dispensations, but that's beside the point. It is jsut a matter of accuracy.

You must also understand the difference between Jesus return for his bride and his return to the earth. I believe that distinction is made in Scripture clear enough to be pretrib. I won't die on that hill, but I believe it. Our issue is not about contrasts between present age and age to come. It is about the timing of the transition.

 

[Paul33]

The eternal covenants that govern this age are the Abrahamic-Davidic Covenants.

This age began with the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden and ends with the return of Christ to earth.

Genesis 3:15 begins the promise to humanity that a seed would come and crush the head of the serpent.

The promise was extended in the covenant to Abraham, and yet again in the covenant to David.

The Mosaic Covenant was an administrative covenant, not an eternal covenant. Its purpose was to keep God's people close to God. The Law was good, but it failed because of the sin nature of humanity (Romans).

Jeremiah, and others, spoke of a New Covenant, also an administrative covenant, that would write the law on the hearts of those who believe and put the Spirit within each person who believes.

Jesus established the New Covenant at Calvary. It is now in full effect as this age (From Fall to Second Coming) advances to its conclusion.

The New Covenant administrates that period of time that is called "the last days." This period began with the ascension of Christ and ends with his return.

The New Covenant didn't set aside Israel, though individual Jews are being cut off. Ethnic Israel is still God's chosen nation as an ethnic people. Not all of ethnic Israel rebelled and rejected their Messiah. Not all of Israel was cut off from the "olive tree." The promises first given to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) are being fulfilled under the administration of the New Covenant. The prophecy of Jeremiah regarding the New Covenant is being fulfilled even now. Israel has been hardened in part, but more and more ethnic Jews are turning to their Messiah.

The Church, which consists of believing Israel and grafted in Gentiles is the natural extension of the people of God under the admnistration of the New Covenant. Ethnic Israel continues to be regrafted in.

When Christ returns to earth, the elect will be gathered to him and he will continue his descent to earth. Christ will rule on earth for a thousand years. This is the Day of the Lord.

At Christ's second coming which happens at the end of the tribulation, the rapture of the elect will take place. After the rapture, the only people left on earth are unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. Ethnic Israel will see their Messiah and mourn. One third will be redeemed and enter the millenium as the head of the nations. The rest of ethnic Israel will be destroyed.

The armies of the nations that made war against the people of God at Armageddon are destroyed. The unbelieiving survivors of the nations will enter the millenium to be ruled over by Christ and his "church" from the head of the nations -Israel. Christ will rule with an iron scepter over these unbelieving nations from Jerusalem.

After the millenium, which ends with the Great White Throne judgment, the existing heaven and earth will melt with fervent heat and a new heaven and earth will come into existence. Eternity on earth will commence with God dwelling among men, restoring humanity back to the purity of the Garden of Eden, minus the Serpent!

I see three periods of time or ages on the earth and then eternity.

1. Paradise - The Garden of Eden
2. Paradise Lost - This Present Age
2A. From Fall of Man to Crucifixion of Christ (Old Covenant)
2B. From Crucifixion of Christ to Second Coming
(New Covenant)
3. Paradise Restored - The Day of the Lord
(Bemis Seat to Great White Throne/Millenium)
4. Eternity - Perfection


The Old Covenant/New Covenant transition doesn't start a new age. It signals a transition in how this age would be administrated. There is more continuity than dichotomy. It is this issue that divides classic dispensationalists from progressive dispensationalists and historic premillenialists.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It seems that you fail to account for Paul's distinction between the past age and this age.

 

[Paul33]

That distinction is found in 2A and 2B.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But they, by definition are two different ages, not two parts of the same age.

 

[Paul33]

Who's definition?

If the eternal covenants are the Abrahamic/Davidic covenants, then a change in how this eternal covenant is administered (from Mosaic Law to New Covenant) does not make or create a "new" age. From the fall of Adam to the return of Christ is one age governed by the eternal Abrahamic/Davidic covenant. The difference is that under the administration of the law, man was unable to keep the law. But under the administration of the new covenant, man by the indwelling Holy Spirit is able to keep the law. In this "one" age the old covenant has been replaced with the new covenant.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Dr.Tim:
(snipped)

When I was at the seminary in New Orleans, there was a class taught by a Dr. Barnes who was a good man, someone I know loved the Lord. He was more of the Covenental type theologian. Someone in class asked him.. "What is a dispensationalist?" He answered, "Well, seems they believe that man was saved differently at different points in time in the Bible."

Those not of the dispensations know nothing of the dispensations and are as your teacher, Dr. Barnes, believing we believe man is saved differently in different ages. Dr. Barnes is right in what we believe, but he has not been shown (or refuses to believe) that what we believe is true, and all men are not offered the same thing, and are to believe what He tells us as we live.

It is after 2AM here so I need to get to bed; but just a couple of paragraphs to show that we believe Christ from heaven as He revealed His “dispensational” salvation to His One Apostle to the Gentile. Also every one is not promised the same thing. Many believe no changes from the beginning. If that is so, it sure has been a waste of time that had a beginning and has an ending.

First, all hold up their hands that believe the gospel of Paul? All are dismissed that do not believe the Epistles of Paul, as it is a waste of time for those that do not believe the Word of God from heaven.

”For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you [/b]Gentiles[/b], 2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-ward: 3. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4. Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6. That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:” Ephesians 3:1-6

I would say something new has happened, that is if we believe the gospel of Paul.

” Romans 3:30, “Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith” Who before Damascus Road knew this? Were the proselytes to the Temple worshippers of God saved “through” faith? Was Noah, David or any of the others saved immediately by believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and came through His blood? It was impossible for Jesus had not yet shed His blood, and they didn’t know His name. They had to endure until the end, while we today are immediately saved into the Body of Christ, and will be with Him forever in heaven, or where ever He is. The Jew has been promised the earth, when His kingdom comes, and won’t we be there to meet those when the kingdom does come?

Is the “great commission” of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”, the same gospel as the Christian message of “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

[DeafPosttrib]

This week, I will post about the definition of dispensation, what it means.

Word, 'dispensation' find in the Bible four times, all are in the New Testament. I will discuss on them this week when I am free.

Dispensationalism is a heavily teaching by premill/pretrib teachers today.

Also, I will discuss on many verses to show the comparing of 'present age' & 'age to come' this week.

By the way, I would like to show you the article on dispensationalism, it is very good and shows why dispensationalism doctrine is misinterpreting. Here is: http://users.frii.com/gosplow/disp2.html

I agree with this. Because of the New Testament already make manifest(to revealed) the mystery of the Old Testament to fulfilled the prophecies which concerning about the new covenant.

So, the prophecy of Jeremiah chapter 31 on the new covenant is already fulfilled by Calvary. Larry doesn't think so. I does. If he doesn't think so, then my question is, are we still under the old covenant?

What is the purpose of Calvary.

Secondly, the most important doctrine of the Bible is the blood of Jesus Christ.

Book of Hebrews talking lot about the covenant and the blood of Christ.

Larry told me, he is still teaching on the book of Hebrews to his church. I do not think he actual understand the purpose of Calvary and the covenant, what it is all about.

Because I am no doubt that Larry already learned the doctrine of dispensationalism from Bible college through teachers.

We know that, many Bible Colleges like as Dallas Theology Seminary, are filled of philosophy teachings.

There are so many different views, opinions, intepreting on the Bible about the prophecy, covenant, salvation, etc..

We all cannot be expectb that we all have same mind and agree everything what the Bible saying. Because we are all humans.

But, the most important basic thing, that we all agree that Christ died on the cross for us, that He saved us from sins and hell for salvation. Christ died not just for Israel only, also whole sinners of the world (1 John 2:2).

Later this week, I will discuss on 'dispensation', and the comparing between 'this age' and 'age to come' with verses.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
This week, I will post about the definition of dispensation, what it means.

Perhaps you may wish to hold off.

By the way, I would like to show you the article on dispensationalism, it is very good and shows why dispensationalism doctrine is misinterpreting. Here is: http://users.frii.com/gosplow/disp2.html

You’re Website reference trips and falls in the very first attempt to disregard what Christ revealed to Paul. Do you see it?

Quote “1. Why Argue about Doctrine?
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. -Romans 16:17-18 KJV" Unquote.

Paul says My gospel. I am the Apostle to the Gentile, and I magnify my office. Paul says Christ revealed to Him a “dispensational” gospel, and Paul says all had better believe him. Peter also tells the Jew the very same thing, for they have a huge problem if they don’t understand what he is trying to tell them.

I am a Gentile, and Paul has a doctrine that Christ Jesus from heaven gave him. He tells you this in the first (1) quote of your referenced Website above. Quote”contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned”.Unquote. What doctrine had they learned? Wouldn't you say it is the doctrine of the gospel of Paul?

Not of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”. Not of circumcision, or keeping of the law, or blood sacrifices in the Temple, or anywhere else. His doctrine is not of the Power of the Holy Spirit in us that we can “just ask” and what we ask will be done. That is another doctrine, not the Christian doctrine that did not come until after Damascus Road.

How are we to pray in the Holy Spirit? Not ask and it will be done, but Thy will be done. Things changed, and that means the “doctrine” changed.

Paul says he will not build on the foundation of Peter. Peter builds a building on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Paul says Christ has now chosen him (Paul) to be the “masterbuilder”, on the foundation of Jesus Christ. There are two houses in the Temple. The Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. Where is the blood offered, and who’s blood is it?

Who looked forward to salvation byfaith, and who is immediately saved through faith? No one knew this until it showed up in the doctrine of the Christian, and Christianity came by Christ Jesus revealing His doctrine to Paul.

In the doctrine of the Christian is the Body of Christ Church. In the doctrine of the Christian is the Rapture. No one knew these things until Christ revealed them to Paul, Christs only heavenly appointed and commissioned Apostle to both the Gentile and Jew. And there is more.

Do you believe these doctrines? These are Christian doctrines. I’ve shown you the “doctrine” I believe, now you show me yours. Surely as a Christian it is the same --- isn’t it? Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Paul33:
If the eternal covenants are the Abrahamic/Davidic covenants, then a change in how this eternal covenant is administered (from Mosaic Law to New Covenant) does not make or create a "new" age.

The AC was made with Abraham with a promise to his genetic descendants. The DC was made with David with a promise to his genetic descendants. Neither of those has direct application to the church. The NT clearly distinguishes a new age. You talk about the way something is "administered." That is exactly what a dispensation is. It is a distinguishable economy is the outworking of God's purpose. It is a change in the way he administrates his work on earth.

I think trying to put the OT and Church into one age falls both on the point made directly in the text about two ages, and in the implications of it.