Featured Eschatology

Depends if they are serving a meal! :laugh:

 

:laugh::laugh:

 

I have never called Classic Dispensationalism heretical. Hyper dispensationalism is heretical in my opinion!

 

He did not ask Adam to either!

I never said obedience was required for Salvation. However, Jesus Christ tells us:

John 14:15. If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 15:10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.

That was not pre-trib, dispensational, premillennialism; that was Covenant or Historic premillennialism, an entirely different doctrine. Progressive dispensationalists are moving in that direction. Covenant premillennialism has the same doctrine of the Church as do amillennialism and post millennialism.

Because they are the fathers of Classic dispensationalism. That is a historical truth.

 

Who on this board believes in hyper-dispensationalism?
Does anyone?
If no one does, why are you railing against such a strawman or nothing that no one believes in. It makes no sense. You are not being rational in your conversations to set forth any argument against those who don't believe what you just admitted they don't believe.

 

He commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of that tree. No such command was given to you. Obvious isn't it.

But you were speaking how God tests individuals in every age/dispensation. Obedience has nothing to do with salvation. That is what the context was.
As for obedience God expects all believers to obey him. Who argues with that? Certainly not a dispensationalist.
Again, he asked Adam not to eat of certain fruit.
He commanded Moses to lead Israel out of Egypt, not you.
He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, not you.
He commanded Saul to kill all the Ishmaelites, not you.
And the examples go on and on.
He does not give the same commands of obedience to each one but he expects that obedience of his chosen. Who would argue with that? Not a dispensationalist.

That's a cop-out. You are changing the subject. The subject was not about premillennialism, etc. It was about dispensations. If they believed in millennialism of any sort then they believed in dispensations. That is a given. Don't change the subject.

It is a "historic truth" according to you and some others. But you cannot prove it and have no way of proving it. It is a fallacy. When re-stated this way: "There were no believers in Classic dispensationalism before Darby or Scofield," it becomes a universal negative, and impossible to prove. To prove it you would have to go back into history and interview every believer that ever lived right down to the apostles, because maybe there was just one that did believe in it. How do you know? Are you that omniscient?

 

B....P does unless I am badly mislead and then there was Ituttut?

Apparently, given that rant, I touched a tender spot!

 

Before spouting off read your original question posted above.

 

The original question, revised for easier reading was:

So let me break down the question for you:
Do you not agree that God dealt differently with Adam than he deals with you?
Do you believe that Adam was tested in a different way than you are?
Do you believe that the revelation Adam received was received was received in a different way than you do?
Do you have a problem in answering these questions?
They require a personal answer as I directed each one to you.

 

That is false. You were the one speaking how God tests individuals in every age/dispensation. Dissimulating is most unbecoming DHK but I have come to expect that from you!

 

Not entirely false.
I wasn't sure which "original question" you were referring to.

 

I am not changing the subject. You are claiming the Early Church Fathers were dispensationalists. That is false and you know it. Ask any Covenant Premillennialist on this board if they are dispensationalists. The ECF's would never have claimed that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, and for which many of them died, was an afterthought because Israel rejected Jesus Christ. I would remind you that the Jews were the initial persecutors of the Church!

From my notes on the Book of Revelation

The persecution of the Church by the Jews began almost immediately after Pentecost. The Church was scattered from Jerusalem, in part because of the persecution led by Saul of Tarsus, eventually leading to the spread of the Gospel to the Gentile nations. The Christians remaining at Jerusalem endured further severe persecution under Herod Agrippa I. Even as the Judaizers continually harassed the converted Saul of Tarsus [now the Apostle Paul] so the Jews persisted in their persecution of the apostolic Church. This persecution occurred not only in Jerusalem and Judea but throughout much of the Roman Empire as the Church grew through the proclamation of the Gospel. Philip Schaff in his History of the Christian Church [8 volumes] describes this persecution of the Church, as follows [Volume II, page 36]:

However, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the spread of Christianity to the Gentiles the primary persecution of the Church passed from the Jews to the Roman Empire and persisted almost 300 years until Rome was destroyed and Imperial Rome was replaced, eventually by papal Rome. Out of the brutal persecution of Christians by Imperial Rome was born the saying of Tertullian: The blood of the Christians is the seed of the Church. ​

 

Darby invented Classic Dispensationalism and the SRB popularized it in this country. A sad day for the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

The original question was:

 

You evidently haven't done your homework!

Justin Martyr (110-165 A.D.
In his Dialogue with Trypho recognized several different economies in the OT. Justin Martyer held the essence of dispensationalism in his recognition of differing economies in the OT.

Irenaeus (130-200 A.D.)
Irenaeus refers in his writings to four principal covenants given to the human race, particularly drawing a distinction between three covenants of the OT and the gospel. This distinction is typical of dispensationalism.

Clement of Alexandria (150-220 A.D.)
Clement identified four dispensations: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic.

Augustine (354-430 A.D.)
Augustine distinguishes between the "former dispensation" when sacrifices were offered and the present age when it is unsuitable to offer sacrifices... Augustine recognizes that worshipers apprach God in a different manner in different ages.

Modern Development
Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)
Poiret wrote a six volume systematic theology entitled L'Economie Divine. In this premillenial work, Poiret presented a sevenfold dispensation scheme.
He recognizes differing dispensations culminating in a literal thousand-year period.

Jonathan Edwards (1637-1716)
Edwards published two volumes entitled A Compeat History, or Survey of All the Dispensations, in which he endeavored to show God's providential dealings from creation to the end of the world.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
This notable hymn writer was also a theologian, and very precise in defining dispensationalism. He recognized the dispensations as conditional ages wherein God had certain expectations of men and made conditional promises and prohibitions to them.
It is noteworthy that though his death was half a century before the birth of Darby, Watts's dispensational outline is very similar to the one found in the Scofield Reference Bible except for the omission of the millennium that Watts did not consider a dispensation.

The above is condensed from The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Ennis.
History shows that dispensationalism has been around a long time.

 

Since about 1830! The above really says nothing about the dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, Chafer, Pentecost, Walvoord, DHK, etc. the Bible speaks of covenants, not dispensations. That man has invented a system of dispensations does not make it so.

God has always dealt with man from the standpoint of Grace, beginning with Adam and continuing throughout Scripture. That is the truth taught in Scripture.

 

I just provided plenty of evidence--all of it before 1830. Your mind is closed. You are unteachable. You refuse even to consider evidence. It is Darby and Scofield even if these other names were in the Bible and inspired by God, or God put them into your ear, you still wouldn't listen. You are deaf to all evidence. Your mind is made up.

 

Old 04-27-2014, 01:48 AM
OldRegular OldRegular is online now
15,000 Posts Club Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 18,197

Default

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good post RLB. You see in beameup exactly what I see. And of course Jesus Christ is reigning now. Where would we be if He were not?

And of course RLB, Mr DHK wants me to use the Moody Handbook to "eddicate" myself. Now I believe Moody was dispensational and have no idea whether the handbook is tainted or not. If I mention Baptist Confessions I am following the teaching of men rather than Scripture but then there is the good ole reliable Moody Handbook.

lol....

 

Come now Icon. You used to post page after page of Confessions. It became legendary; your trademark. We all know it.

Jesus is not now reigning. You do err not knowing the Scriptures.
He sits at the right hand of the throne of God ever making intercession for us. He is our Intercessor, our Mediator, our Advocate. He ever mediates or intercedes on our behalf. He is not reigning and will not reign until He comes again and puts down all enemies under his feet.
Until that time Satan is "the god of this world," "the prince of the power of the air," the "spirit that now works in the children of disobedience."
--That doesn't describe Christ, but rather Satan and his minions.

BTW, Moody is not a person. It is an Institute, as in Moody Bible Institute. The author/editor of the book is Paul Enns.
Enns serves as professor and director of the Tampa Extension, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Dr. Enns has also taught at Northwestern College in Minneapolis and at both Dallas and Talbot Theological Seminaries.
The foreword to the book was written by John MacArthur.

I used the book not for doctrine (found in the Bible), but for history (found in other books).

 

Yes DHK my mind is made up and it cannot be corrupted by you because the Dispensationalism of you, Darby, and Scofield among others is a false doctrine, a manmade doctrine in every way as bad as some Roman Catholic Doctrines because it makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died an afterthought in God's program for Israel. I thank God that when God saved me in 1965, though I am surrounded by dispensationalists, a dear friend and brother in Christ, an Elder in the Presbyterian Church suggested a Thompson Chain Reference Bible to me. Otherwise I might have fallen prey to the error taught in the SRB as so many others in the Baptist Churches have.

You conveniently did not mention which of the Early Church Fathers believed what Ryrie calls the sine qua non of Dispensational error which is:

Thus we have the Classic Dispensational teaching that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a parenthesis, an intercalation, an afterthought in Gods program for Israel. Nowhere in Scripture do we read that Jesus Christ suffered and died to cover the sins of the nation Israel. When the Jewish leaders conspired with the Romans to crucify Jesus Christ, and the mass roared approval, the use of the Jews in God's purpose to save His people was complete. God exacted punishment of the Jews in 70 AD by the destruction of the temple so that the useless sacrifice of animals, now an abomination before God, was brought to a halt!

I have mentioned before and will again that I thank God for those progressive dispensationalists who have abandoned the Classic Dispensational error of the parenthesis Church.