No sorry what are the rules please ?
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!
TCassidy, I have posted here for you an accurate description of millennial and dispensational thought before Darby came along. It's taken from George Peter's famous work, The Theocratic Kingdom (Proposition 78):
The early church doctrine was revived after the Reformation.
SEVERAL HUNDRED NAMES, INCLUDING SOME OF THE MOST EMINENT, LEARNED, AND PIOUS IN THE CHURCH, ARE GIVEN IN SUCH WORKS, AS TAYLOR’S VOICE OF THE CHURCH, BROOKS’S EL. PROPH. INTERPRETATION, SEISS’ LAST TIMES, ELLIOTT’S HORAE. APOC., SHIMEALL’S ESCHATOLOGY, COX’S MILLENARIAN’S ANSWER, ANDERSON’S APOLOGY, TIME OF THE END, WEST’S ESSAY ON HIS. OF DOC, AND VARIOUS OTHERS, EMBRACING MANY LIVING AFTER THE REFORMATION, WHO AGAIN REVIVED THE EARLY FAITH OF THE CHURCH IN THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST STILL FUTURE, AND TO BE SET UP AT THE SECOND ADVENT.
Quick question back ...
Did God exist before religion ?
The Rules and Terms of Service can be found by scrolling to the very bottom of the page and going to the far right margin where you will find "Terms and Rules" - click on it.No sorry what are the rules please ?
Irony is that he does not believe in replacement Theology!I am writing this response to try and educate you. First, as a grafted in branch, you need to tread lightly with your sanctified theological stick with which you are beating us over the head. You are correct regarding the Trinity, but before you come on tobtjis forum and strut your knowledge and boasting you better go do your homework. I think a thorough understanding of the Brit Hachadasha and in particular Romans 11 is in order. You can repeat your self all day about the the Trinity and the Godhead, but your claim that Jews worship a totally different God still doesn't wash. Go study Romans 11 and go back and find every Tanach reference the apostle Sh'ual used to argue his point and then maybe, just maybe the scales of Replacement Theology might fall from your eyes.
Think that there is still a distinction between Church and israel though!If I may make a small correction: Abraham actually did see the Lord Jesus' day (John 8:56); he saw Him with the eyes of faith. It was (most of) the Jews of Christ's day who did not believe in Him, and most Jews today who still do not believe in Him. That is why it is said that only those who believe (whether Jews or Gentiles) are sons of Abraham (Galatians 3:7).
Those who really love the Jews will be praying for them to come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and maybe contributing to missions to Israel. It is not love to tell Jews that they are saved or that they will be saved in unbelief.
There is only one people of God (John 10:16; Ephesians 2:14-18 etc.). This, of course, is not 'Replacement Theology,' but Inclusion Theology, 'That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs of the same body....' (Ephesians 3:6).
Cumming was an historic premillenialist, same as Elliott. Irving may have been at one time but in his Morning Watch magazine, he claimed that he was the first to preach on dispensationalism on Dec 25th 1825 and next time on the same day the follwing year. Of course Irvings prophets enlarged on that and claimed the saints would be translated in 1835.
When Edwards speaks of 'dispensations' he means the Old and New Covenants. Edwards was Postmillennial in his eschatology, as were many of the Puritans. He foresaw the Gospel going out into the world in great power and being victorious before the Return of Christ.So, Jonathan Edwards, 1703 – 1758, was totally off his rocker when he stated "There is, perhaps, no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ [in the past, before the 18th century, before Darby and Irving] as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ" (Edward's Works, I, 100)?
Think the prominent reformed position is A mil, Post mil, and some historical premil, correct?When Edwards speaks of 'dispensations' he means the Old and New Covenants. Edwards was Postmillennial in his eschatology, as were many of the Puritans. He foresaw the Gospel going out into the world in great power and being victorious before the Return of Christ.
They help top a Historical premil view, but no Rature/Premil Dispy view!So, Jonathan Edwards, 1703 – 1758, was totally off his rocker when he stated "There is, perhaps, no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines so much differ [in the past, before the 18th century, before Darby and Irving] as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ" (Edward's Works, I, 100)?
Or what about Iranaeus? Maybe he went to the future and talked with Darby or Irving or something and then went back in time in the first century to write the following?
"Thus does the Word of God always preserve the outlines, as it were, of things to come, and points out to men the various forms (species), as it were, of the dispensations of the Father, teaching us the things pertaining to God" (Against Heresies, Book IV, Ch. XX, 11).Both Iranaeus and Justin Martyr believed in a distinction between Israel and the Church. If you don't believe me I'll show you.
"Thus were they perfected who knew one and the same God, who from beginning to end was present with mankind in the various dispensations" (Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. XII, 13).
"since there is one and the same God the Father, and His Word, who has been always present with the human race, by means indeed of various dispensations, and has wrought out many things, and saved from the beginning those who are saved, (for these are they who love God, and follow the Word of God according to the class to which they belong,)..." (Against Heresies, Book IV, Ch. XXVIII, 2).
"Therefore the Son of the Father declares [Him] from the beginning, inasmuch as He was with the Father from the beginning, who did also show to the human race prophetic visions, and diversities of gifts, and His own ministrations, and the glory of the Father, in regular order and connection, at the fitting time for the benefit [of mankind]. For where there is a regular succession, there is also fixedness; and where fixedness, there suitability to the period; and where suitability, there also utility. And for this reason did the Word become the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of men, for whom He made such great dispensations, revealing God indeed to men, but presenting man to God, and preserving at the same time the invisibility of the Father, lest man should at any time become a despiser of God, and that he should always possess something towards which he might advance; but, on the other hand, revealing God to men through many dispensations, lest man, failing away from God altogether, should cease to exist. For the glory of God is a living man; and the life of man consists in beholding God. For if the manifestation of God which is made by means of the creation, affords life to all living in the earth, much more does that revelation of the Father which comes through the Word, give life to those who see God" (Against Heresies, Book IV, Ch. XX, 7).
Abraham was saved by his faith. His faith in what? The repository of faith in the post mosaic period was in the meaning of the sacrificial system. They held on toPaul himself stated the same thing, as the Jews know Yahweh, but refuse to accept Yeshua, so blind to that, but still know real God!
They still lnow of the God of Abraham. but until receiving Yeshua, are blind, just as they were in time of paul!Abraham was saved by his faith. His faith in what? The repository of faith in the post mosaic period was in the meaning of the sacrificial system. They held on to
The teaching of Moses. The entire book of Hebrews is a struggle with giving up Moses and seeing Christ Jesus as a more excellent way. Why the argument? Without Jesus, the Christ they were lost. They did not know what they worshipped because long ago the word of God was lost in the house of God. They held on to Moses and did not know why and consequently knows Yahweh.
Today's Jews moved into a cultural religiosity and a quasi system of works and have lost the bread crumbs along the path. A different God? Abreaham was saved by faith and this is the fly in the ointment to a different God.
Just a thought
Actually, it's not. Abraham did not deny the Messiah. Present day Jews do deny the Messiah.A different God? Abreaham was saved by faith and this is the fly in the ointment to a different God.
We know YOUR bio: Welcome back from the gallows, glad you could join us. Glad also that the revelations you received since you were hanged has led you to become a baptist!It would be great if the new members who are contributing to this thread would post a short bio on the Introduction forum, so we can get to know them.
When Edwards speaks of 'dispensations' he means the Old and New Covenants. Edwards was Postmillennial in his eschatology, as were many of the Puritans. He foresaw the Gospel going out into the world in great power and being victorious before the Return of Christ.
They help top a Historical premil view, but no Rature/Premil Dispy view!
Well it's completely and utterly wrong. That's my point.Before Darby came around, Edwards would have been considered a dispensationalist. That is my point.
Well it's completely and utterly wrong. That's my point.
Someone else with more knowledge of the Fathers will point out your errors concerning Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. My area of expertise is on the Puritans and you are entirely mistaken. Many Puritans certainly looked forward to a revival among the Jews, and many Reformed folk do today. Cromwell invited them back to England (after they had been expelled in the Middle Ages) with a view to facilitating their conversion. But they were all perfectly clear that if the Jews were going to be saved, it would be before the Return of Christ.
Believed Spurgeon looked for the jews to convert at time of second coming, as he was historical premil by his own testimony!Well it's completely and utterly wrong. That's my point.
Someone else with more knowledge of the Fathers will point out your errors concerning Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. My area of expertise is on the Puritans and you are entirely mistaken. Many Puritans certainly looked forward to a revival among the Jews, and many Reformed folk do today. Cromwell invited them back to England (after they had been expelled in the Middle Ages) with a view to facilitating their conversion. But they were all perfectly clear that if the Jews were going to be saved, it would be before the Return of Christ.