Identify Your View

[HankD]

How can there be a separate future for Jews and Gentiles, if the distinctions have been abolished by Jesus' death on the cross?

As on who leans torward dispensationalism, I would say that this non-distinction refers to this "age" (sometimes used as synonomous with "dispensation")i.e the age of grace or the dispensation of the Church.

Everyone comes freely to Christ into His Church by grace through faith in Him, His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sin and there is no difference as there was under the Law, Jew, gentile, male, female without distinction.

When the times of the gentiles has been fulfilled, dispensationalist believe that God will take up again in a special way with the Nation of Israel as His own people as in former times.

Many see the formation of the secular Nation of Israel in 1947 as having been providential and the foreshadow/forerunner of the Millenial Nation of Israel.

Perhaps the "seed" of the millenial Nation of Israel are the 144,000 sealed of the 12 tribes in the Book of Revelation after the beginning of the time of Tribulation Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24.

HankD

 

[EdSutton]

Why the hostility, Ed? Have I offended you somehow? Tell me what I've done and I'll willingly apologize.

If my signature offends you I'd be happy to change it. But it seems to me that one's signature is a different matter than a direct conversation is.

I grew up with a red letter Bible that was precious to me, since it was my first one. I still have it. But the color of the letters in the Bible don't matter to me. The red is a little hard to read, though, as it is on an Internet forum. I have an eye disease called ocular rosacea which is acting up right now.

I hope my varied color scheme, did not have anything to do with this.

No implied or actual hostility intended, and certainly no offense taken. [Why do many BB posters see hostility, where there is none, for there are certainly enough instances where I do see such, especially in certain areas?? Just wonderin'! (I could start with "kicking b*#t, and taking names" if someone would like.) ]

And in no way am I offended by your signature I assure you. I was just pointing out the seeming contradiction, in the positions.

I have two objections to a "red letter" edition Bible, with (A.) the first being that it is a somewhat harder to read, just as you said, at least for me, for as a Type II diabetic, even though I see fairly well for one so afflicted. And at 60 yesterday, BTW, my vision is not as good as it once was, for "small stuff," either. A darker "blood red" print, not to mention larger font, would help greatly, but I don't seem to see that forthcoming, and I sure don't want to carry around any modern-day, 30#, "Great Bible" to begin with. (Incidentally, they once had to chain these Bibles to the pulpits, to keep them from "walking off", for even at 30#, they were somehow "getting legs" in the Word starved environment of that day.)

However, the second is my main objection. (B.) Whether or not this is intentional, the "Red Letter" editions have have the practical effect of negating II TIm. 3:16, which says "All Scripture is God-breathed-out, and is profitable...", by elevating these supposed actual quoted "Words of Jesus" above the rest of Scripture. In the first place, often we do not know whether or not the quotes are "direct quotes" or "indirect quotes." Jesus himself, while on the earth, wrote nothing we have recorded, at least. In the second place, the OT quotes of the LORD God are just as much a 'quote from God' as any words of Jesus, could have been. And in the third place, I believe God, the Holy Spirit, 'inspired' each and every Biblical writer in what words to use, consistent with the writer's own personality, with a very few exceptions, including "the BIG TEN", which were written by the hand of God, himself. John 3:16 and Ex. 20:1-3 are no more "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, (nor are they any less so), than are the words due to the historical research of Luke, in Acts, than are the words of Luke in Acts, in which he was a participant, than are the words of the unknown writers of Hebrews and Chronicles. Nor is Ps. 117 any less important than is Ps. 119, considering that they are the shortest and longest chapters, respectively in the English Bibles to which most of us have access.

Have I already said enough that is entirely orthodox, that you would recommend me for teaching a class in Bibliology at your school, sometime?

Ed

 

[John of Japan]

Have I already said enough that is entirely orthodox, that you would recommend me for teaching a class in Bibliology at your school, sometime?

Ed

Why sure, come on over! But you'll have to buy your own plane ticket. :thumbs::wavey:

 

[John of Japan]

My aren't we impressed with ourselves. No one will ever acccuse you of humbleness.

Can't avoid the insults, can you? It would have been lack of humility if I had actually listed credentials and bragged about them. I did not. You still do not know my credentials, nor do I know yours, but it would have been perfectly natural in a real world debate for the audience to know the credentials of the debaters.

I had hoped for a civil debate, but that won't happen. I see no further profit in debating you.

Sayonara.

 

[Allan]

I hope my varied color scheme, did not have anything to do with this.

No implied or actual hostility intended, and certainly no offense taken. [Why do many BB posters see hostility, where there is none, for there are certainly enough instances where I do see such, especially in certain areas?? Just wonderin'! (I could start with "kicking b*#t, and taking names" if someone would like.) ]

And in no way am I offended by your signature I assure you. I was just pointing out the seeming contradiction, in the positions.

I have two objections to a "red letter" edition Bible, with (A.) the first being that it is a somewhat harder to read, just as you said, at least for me, for as a Type II diabetic, even though I see fairly well for one so afflicted. And at 60 yesterday, BTW, my vision is not as good as it once was, for "small stuff," either. A darker "blood red" print, not to mention larger font, would help greatly, but I don't seem to see that forthcoming, and I sure don't want to carry around any modern-day, 30#, "Great Bible" to begin with. (Incidentally, they once had to chain these Bibles to the pulpits, to keep them from "walking off", for even at 30#, they were somehow "getting legs" in the Word starved environment of that day.)

However, the second is my main objection. (B.) Whether or not this is intentional, the "Red Letter" editions have have the practical effect of negating II TIm. 3:16, which says "All Scripture is God-breathed-out, and is profitable...", by elevating these supposed actual quoted "Words of Jesus" above the rest of Scripture. In the first place, often we do not know whether or not the quotes are "direct quotes" or "indirect quotes." Jesus himself, while on the earth, wrote nothing we have recorded, at least. In the second place, the OT quotes of the LORD God are just as much a 'quote from God' as any words of Jesus, could have been. And in the third place, I believe God, the Holy Spirit, 'inspired' each and every Biblical writer in what words to use, consistent with the writer's own personality, with a very few exceptions, including "the BIG TEN", which were written by the hand of God, himself. John 3:16 and Ex. 20:1-3 are no more "inspired" by the Holy Spirit, (nor are they any less so), than are the words due to the historical research of Luke, in Acts, than are the words of Luke in Acts, in which he was a participant, than are the words of the unknown writers of Hebrews and Chronicles. Nor is Ps. 117 any less important than is Ps. 119, considering that they are the shortest and longest chapters, respectively in the English Bibles to which most of us have access.

Have I already said enough that is entirely orthodox, that you would recommend me for teaching a class in Bibliology at your school, sometime?

Ed

Honestly Ed, when I read your post I 'assumed' the same thing as John and it sort of threw me.
Maybe not so much as hostile but assumedly aggitated and confronting.

 

[John of Japan]

Not so much offended, but just resentful of the monopolization on theological terms and labels sometimes. For example: I also resent hearing a Calvinist call what they are espousing “THE Doctrine of Grace” as I believe my doctrine is just as full of grace as theirs is, you know? I know you aren’t meaning to offend me. :type:

All right, brother. God bless.

 

[Allan]

I had hoped for a civil debate, but that won't happen.
Sayonara.

Seldom does brother, seldom does.

 

[John of Japan]

Seldom does brother, seldom does.

Nice when it does, though. :thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Nice when it does, though. :thumbs:

I agree :thumbs:

 

[Pilgrimer]

WHy do you use the word "hyper-literal" or "hyper-literatist?"

Because you and I read the Bible understanding that there is both literal and spiritual meaning to the words. The hyper-literalist insists on a literal-only meaning, such as the statement on the post which opened this whole discussion:

*Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system of theology with two primary distinctives: (1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy.

A consistently literal interpretation means every word must consistently be understood in its literal, normal sense, especially prophecy. The result is that the hyper-literalist objects to any spiritual fulfillment of the Scriptures, especially prophecy, insisting that all things must have a literal fulfillment. But since the things of God are spiritual in nature, that leaves an awful lot as yet unfulfilled according to that view, including the triumph and reign of Christ as well as the salvation and restoration of Israel, for example.

I also use the term to refer to the Full Preterist view which goes to the opposite extreme. This view would be described as a consistently spiritual interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy.

A consistently spiritual interpretation means every word must have a spiritual meaning, especially every word of prophecy. The result is that the hyper-spiritualist objects to the literal fulfillment of the Scriptures, especially prophecy, insisting that all things have already been fulfilled spiritually, which doesn’t leave anything as yet unfulfilled such as the physical return of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the literal new heavens and earth.

I know you know all this but bear with me, I'm making a point!

The thing is, no one is really a true hyper either way. Everyone understands that some Scriptures are to be taken literally, and that others are very loaded with spiritual meaning. It’s only when we disagree on which is which that we get into the “my method is better than your method” spirit.

Frankly, I don’t believe there is any one method of interpretation that guarantees a correct doctrinal view. I think the whole issue of how to correctly interpret the Bible actually falls within the scope of God’s job duties. He is the one who either opens our eyes in our reading of the Scriptures or leaves us to walk in the darkness of our own imaginations. It depends on the heart and spirit with which we approach Him and His Word.

What I meant by an “earthly kingdom” is the Premillennial/Chiliastic view that the kingdom of Jesus Christ will be the literal ancient land of Israel; that Christ’s throne will be the actual throne that David once sat upon which will be located in the city of old Jerusalem in a rebuilt Old Covenant Temple; that Jesus will reign from there for 1000 years and his reign will extend over the entire earth and every living being will be obedient to him, including different classes of people, both saints and sinners.

Others, myself included, believe that the kingdom of Jesus Christ (also called the Messianic Kingdom) is actually God’s Kingdom, the Father’s Kingdom, Heaven, where God has placed Jesus on His own throne, at His right hand, and that the Father has given the Son absolute power and authority over all things, not only things in the earth, including peoples and nations, including Israel, but over things in heaven and even the powers of hell. The one and only exception to Christ’s authority is the Father Himself. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) I also believe this is a very exclusive kingdom being a spiritual kingdom and only those who are born of the spirit can even see the Kingdom of God and of His Christ, let alone have access to it. But we who are the redeemed have full access not only to enter into the kingdom, but to ascend up to New Jerusalem, to enter in at the gates, to walk the streets of gold, to trace the course of the River of Life, to eat from the tree planted along it’s banks, and to climb up into the very inner most court of Heaven's Holy of Holy, the throneroom of the Most High, to appear before our Creator and to speak with him heart to heart. This we do not in the body, but in the spirit, because Heaven, God’s Kingdom, is a spiritual kingdom, one that will one day be manifest in the earth, but is not of the earth. Ergo, Jesus himself said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Do you see the immeasureable difference between these two views of Christ's Kingdom and his reign?


Yes, the New Jerusalem will descend out of heaven one day, but not in this world. That will be in the world to come, what the old timers called the “eternal state.” At the end of his reign Jesus will return to this old sin-weary world to judge and destroy the wicked, and reward the righteous. There will be a resurrection and a judgment and then this present heavens and earth, the whole cosmos, will also pass through the lake of fire and be purged and cleansed, and all corruption will be burned away and there will be a new heavens and new earth. (2 Peter 3) Then, in the world to come, the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven (Revelation 21:1-5), and will be made manifest in this earth, a new earth, an earth (including our bodies) that has been purified and restored, made whole as it was in the beginning, only better, because in the new heavens and earth our God won’t simply come to walk with us in the cool of the day, as He did with Adam, but our God will dwell with us face to face . . . forever, ergo the “eternal state,” which we have not achieved yet, but which will only come to pass when the Lord returns to redeem the earth and those he has purchased with his blood.

We are strangers and pilgrims in the earth.
Not because we are at home in heaven.
But because our home is with God.

"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven . . .

. . . Even so, come, Lord Jesus."


In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Grasshopper]

Can't avoid the insults, can you? It would have been lack of humility if I had actually listed credentials and bragged about them. I did not. You still do not know my credentials, nor do I know yours, but it would have been perfectly natural in a real world debate for the audience to know the credentials of the debaters.

I had hoped for a civil debate, but that won't happen. I see no further profit in debating you.

Sayonara.

Insult?? Just an observation from this very condescending remark:

"How do I know you are even a worthy opponent, with close credentials to mine?"

But I think we all know your bailing out has more to do with my questions than this precieved insult. But perhaps another dispie will take up my questions.

 

[Brother Bob]

Insult?? Just an observation from this very condescending remark:

"How do I know you are even a worthy opponent, with close credentials to mine?"

But I think we all know your bailing out has more to do with my questions than this precieved insult. But perhaps another dispie will take up my questions.

Man, I love me too...................

How you know the man who taught you, had it right??

Gal 1:12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jam 1:5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.



BBob,