-
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!
In which "Millennial Camp" was ....
- Thread starter wpe3bql
- Start date
[QUOTE="DHK]The church had not replaced Israel. The book of Hebrews proved its existence. What do you think he was writing about???
[/QUOTE]
He was writing about the fact that the entire Old Covenant and its Temple worship was about to disappear for ever (Heb. 8:13). The Puritan John Owen in his great (in every respect!) commentary on Hebrews gives 17 ways in which the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic one. Here's my take on the subject. Note especially Owen's seventeenth point.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-new-covenant/
BTW, wouldn't it be great to be a Puritan preacher? ".........and seventeenthly......." :laugh:
[/QUOTE]
He was writing about the fact that the entire Old Covenant and its Temple worship was about to disappear for ever (Heb. 8:13). The Puritan John Owen in his great (in every respect!) commentary on Hebrews gives 17 ways in which the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic one. Here's my take on the subject. Note especially Owen's seventeenth point.
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/the-new-covenant/
BTW, wouldn't it be great to be a Puritan preacher? ".........and seventeenthly......." :laugh:
I was referring to the "Book of Hebrews" not just a couple of verses of it.
NO, the author was not simply referring to covenants.
Jesus is better than the angels (chapter one--not covenants)
He is better than Moses (chapter three--not covenants)
He is better than the Sabbath Law. (Chapter four)
He is better than the OT High Priest.
His qualifications of a priest are better (chapter five)
Need I go on. Christ is better than... In each and ever chapter it is Christ that is better than!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You are spreading false doctrine with statements like the above. The dispensational error foisted on gullible "Christians" has caused nothing but trouble in the Body of Jesus Christ since it was first developed in the 1800's.
I have shown on numerous occasions that historically Baptists were predominantly Amillennial as indicated in their Confessions {Baptist Confessions of Faith by Lumpkin}
Baptists did not come out of Rome and they were not dispensationalists either. The pre-trib removal of the "parenthesis" church {so that GOD could continue HIS program for Israel} was the invention of John Nelson Darby about 1830. In this country it had its earliest acceptance among the Presbyterians. It was apparently adopted by the Pentecostal groups which formed in the late 1800's. The Scofield notes were instrumental in spreading the dispensational error among the Baptist Churches.
This Baptist has never adopted the "replacement" doctrine. I believe that GOD has had one people throughout time, those whose sins are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The Southern Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 takes this same view:
GOD speaking through the Apostle Paul has a lot to say to you dispensationalists who do not understand HIS CHURCH:
Galatians 3:16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Why is it that dispensationalists who follow the teaching of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Ironside, etc., etc. etc. get so incensed when anyone mentions that the false concept that the CHURCH for which Jesus Christ died is only a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel?
So there are assemblies that get it all wrong. The doctrine of Darby is false and the doctrine of Salvation by Sovereign Grace is Biblical. There has always been a congregation that taught the Biblical doctrines of the Church for which Jesus Christ died
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay.
Replacement theology is poor theology. The Israel of God has been from Abel. It is the Household of Faith. It's never been replaced.
Yes, the superiority of the New Covenant over the Old. It is superior in all ways, from it's mediation (through Christ Himself instead of through angels as was the Old Covenant) to it's realization.
So, the Levitical priesthood is done. Kaput. It's been folded up and put in an old trunk in the attic.
I will leave it others to contend over these posts.
I frankly don't care anymore.
Those who do not see the true of what both John and Paul states as the current and future condition of the Jewish nation will merely have to see it unfold.
Frankly, I believe the prophets, and the NT writers, and so did the vast majority of the earliest days of the church. That is until the control was usurped by the Romanists and the Pope rules and demands.
I frankly don't care anymore.
Those who do not see the true of what both John and Paul states as the current and future condition of the Jewish nation will merely have to see it unfold.
Frankly, I believe the prophets, and the NT writers, and so did the vast majority of the earliest days of the church. That is until the control was usurped by the Romanists and the Pope rules and demands.
"Premillennialism teaches that the Second coming will occur before a literal thousand-year reign of Christ from Jerusalem upon the earth. In the early church, premillennialism was called chiliasm, from the Greek term meaning 1,000, a word used six times in Revelation 20:2-7. This view is most often contrasted with Postmillennialism which sees Christ's return after a golden "millennial age" where Christ rules spiritually from his throne in heaven, and Amillennialism which sees the millennium as a figurative reference to the current church age.
"Premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church."
(from Premillennialism,, Theopedia)
Let others contend, I am done."Premillennialism was the most widely held view of the earliest centuries of the church."
(from Premillennialism,, Theopedia)
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is a long way from the premillennialism of the early Church fathers to the dispensationalism of Darby and his followers; 1700-1800 years and a limitless time in your false teaching of Scripture. Darbyism is a corruption of Scripture and that is a fact verified by correct understanding of Scripture and the Clear Teaching of Galatians 3.
Jesus Christ did not die on a Roman Cross for a "parenthesis" or an "intercalation" which Chafer claims as an improvement. Either way it makes the death of Jesus Christ of non effect.
Jesus Christ shed his blood for the sins of all the elect of GOD, the CHURCH, the BRIDE of Jesus Christ.
GOD speaking through the Apostle Paul identifies the true seed of Abraham, not Israel, not even Judah through whom GOD would enter the world, but the GOD-man Himself Jesus Christ {Galatians 3:16}. God further reveals that the promises to Abraham were actually made to Jesus Christ and were fulfilled in and through Jesus Christ and, therefore, the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, inherited the promises made to Abraham. All who follow after Darby should read the 3rd Chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Church at Galatia. GOD has some remarkable things to teach you!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Very well said Aaron and as usual you make your points with a minimum of words! It is indeed a mystery why anyone would want to dig up that which Jesus Christ buried!
You have given your opinion and not definite proof.
You are not at liberty to call his doctrine "heresy."
There are many on this board that hold the same doctrine.
In fact, Spurgeon himself held to the same "heresy."
http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm#statements
Spurgeon believed in the rapture, the millennial kingdom and the second coming.
He also believed that Israel existed distinct and separate as a nation; that Christianity neither replaced it, nor was a continuation of it.
Spurgeon was no heretic; neither are the other dispensationalists on this board.
Again you err. Dispensationalism has been around since the ECF, as was posted. Baptist teaching has been around since that time as well. There has not been an age in history where God has not had his people, and they haven't been the RCC.
Your obsession with Darby and Scofield has blinded your eyes to the truth of history.
Of course that is not true is it? Do you descend from Levi, or from Mechizedek? Can you prove it? Obviously not.
Your contention (or theory) is very much like some of the extreme Landmarker's which believe that to be a "true Baptist" you must be baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist...right down to the disciples. Yes, you say, God has had his people right back to ...who did you say??? Right back to his disciples??? You have that genealogy written down right? Just like the Mormons do? They are the ones who claim they can trace their genealogy back to Adam, and they are the chosen race. You are claiming close to the same thing.
Salvation is by faith in Christ, not by genealogy.
So, how do you know that you are one of the elect? Where is your certificate?
On THIS board You are the only one to use this terminology. No one else has. If no one here has used this term, or has admitted that we believe it, then why do you accuse us of believing it? It is a false accusation. Simply because you say those men believe in such a doctrine does not mean the rest of us believe in it. Your problem is:
interaction with those whom you debate, and,
assumptions that you know what they believe. You are wrong.
There are many assemblies that are wrong on many things. That is a given.
I don't believe the doctrines that TULIP represents are biblical. I believe they are in error.
TULIP is not found in the Bible, but "dispensation" is.
BTW, in answer to another poster who was correct in his position, here is a good article for you to read. In part it says:
He is referring to the era of Spurgeon.
The URL is:
https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj7g.pdf
Prophet. Priest. King.
As a descendant of Judah He now reigns on the throne of David.
As Prophet, He was like unto Moses. To Him were the Jews to hearken in all things whatsoever He spoke to them.
The Israel of God has always been those born from the Jerusalem that is above, Jew or Gentile. Jews inwardly ,circumcised in heart with the work of the law written upon their heart. There were always more ‘Israel of God’ outside the Mosaic Covenant than there were of those that ‘had the Husband’.
I know nothing about replacement ‘theology’. I know my Bible well enough to know that God, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, spoke through Noah:
God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem… Gen 9:27
And the Prophet
….But new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins. And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old is good. Lk 5:38,39
I think the revulsion to the idea of Israel after the flesh being ‘replaced’ is from the tendency of hoi polloi to think only in terms of eternal consequences. Being cast out of the kingdom into the outer darkness does not equate to ‘infinity in a pain amplifier’. It is synonymous with the curses outlined in Lev 26 & Dt 28 and other places. The loss is in this temporal realm, not the eternal.
Whether you want to call it being ‘replaced’ or not, a ‘switch’ has definitely occurred:
30 For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience,
31 even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy.
32 For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Ro 11
As a descendant of Judah He now reigns on the throne of David.
As Prophet, He was like unto Moses. To Him were the Jews to hearken in all things whatsoever He spoke to them.
The Israel of God has always been those born from the Jerusalem that is above, Jew or Gentile. Jews inwardly ,circumcised in heart with the work of the law written upon their heart. There were always more ‘Israel of God’ outside the Mosaic Covenant than there were of those that ‘had the Husband’.
I know nothing about replacement ‘theology’. I know my Bible well enough to know that God, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, spoke through Noah:
God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem… Gen 9:27
And the Prophet
….But new wine must be put into fresh wine-skins. And no man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old is good. Lk 5:38,39
I think the revulsion to the idea of Israel after the flesh being ‘replaced’ is from the tendency of hoi polloi to think only in terms of eternal consequences. Being cast out of the kingdom into the outer darkness does not equate to ‘infinity in a pain amplifier’. It is synonymous with the curses outlined in Lev 26 & Dt 28 and other places. The loss is in this temporal realm, not the eternal.
Whether you want to call it being ‘replaced’ or not, a ‘switch’ has definitely occurred:
30 For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience,
31 even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy.
32 For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Ro 11
The fact that both Jew and Gentile are saved under the New Covenant denies a "switch."
This suggests that what occurs in salvation in Christ occurred under the Law and prior economies, and that thee is simply a different recipient.
That is not the case.
And Prophecy makes it clear that National Israel will be redeemed, and that Christ will rule that Kingdom for one thousand years.
God bless.
I AM RESPONDING BY PHONE,NOT SURE HOW TO QUOTE ON THE PHONE SO MY RESPONSES WILL BE IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS....
You have given your opinion and not definite proof.
AND YOU GAVE YOUR OPINION AND NOT DEFINITE PROOF ALSO.
You are not at liberty to call his doctrine "heresy."
There are many on this board that hold the same doctrine.
HE DID NOT USE THE WORD HERESY DID HE....HE SPOKE ABOUT FALSE TEACHING AND ERROR AS YOU HAVE.
In fact, Spurgeon himself held to the same "heresy."
http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm#statements
YOU AGAIN USE THE WORD HERESY WHICH HAS ONLY BEEN USED BY YOU.SPURGEON WAS HISTORIC PREMILLENNIAL NOT DISPENSATIONAL PREMILL......SO YOU SAYING HE BELIEVED THE SAME IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT
Spurgeon was no heretic; neither are the other dispensationalists on this board.
NNE SAID HE WAS A HERETIC. ....YOU ADDED THAT TERM AS YOU USUALLY DO.
Again you err. Dispensationalism has been around since the ECF, as was posted.
WRONG...IT IS YOU WHO ERROR AS OLD REGULAR HAS GIVEN THE CORRECT TIME LINE WHICH YOU REJECT EVEN THOUGH A GOOGLE SEARCH WILL SHOW IT.
Baptist teaching has been around since that time as well. There has not been an age in history where God has not had his people, and they haven't been the RCC.
Your obsession with Darby and Scofield has blinded your eyes to the truth of history.
HE HAS AN OBSESSION WITH THE TRUTH THAT YOU AND OTHERS DENY.
Of course that is not true is it? Do you descend from Levi, or from Mechizedek? Can you prove it? Obviously not.
HE DID NOT SAY HE DESCENDED FROM LEVI DID HE?
Your contention (or theory) is very much like some of the extreme Landmarker's which believe that to be a "true Baptist" you must be baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist...right down to the disciples. Yes, you say, God has had his people right back to ...who did you say??? Right back to his disciples??? You have that genealogy written down right? Just like the Mormons do? They are the ones who claim they can trace their genealogy back to Adam, and they are the chosen race. You are claiming close to the same thing.
YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE ACCURACY OF HIS STATEMENTS....S
Salvation is by faith in Christ, not by genealogy.
So, how do you know that you are one of the elect? Where is your certificate?
WE KNOW YOU DENY THIS TRUTH....NOW YOU MOCK THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND IT?
On THIS board You are the only one to use this terminology. No one else has.
SEVERAL OF US HAVE CORRECTLY USED THIS TERM...IT IS AND HAS BEEN USED IN RECENT CHURCH HISTORY TO DESCRIBE THIS ERROR.
If no one here has used this term, or has admitted that we believe it, then why do you accuse us of believing it? It is a false accusation. Simply because you say those men believe in such a doctrine does not mean the rest of us believe in it. Your problem is:
interaction with those whom you debate, and,
assumptions that you know what they believe. You are wrong.
NO...WRONG AGAIN.THAT IS THE CLASSIC TEACHING WHICH HE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES.ANY OF YOU WHO DENY IT DO SO BECAUSE IT SHOWS THE VIEW TO BE UNBIBLICAL ERROR.ALL YOUR OBJECTION HERE IS ,IS A WEAK ATTEMPT TO AVOID
THE REAL HISTORIC POSITION AND HIDE FROM HAVING TO DEFEND THAT WHICH IS FALSE. WHEN CORRECTION IS GIVEN BY O.R. OR KYREDNECK OR AARON IT IS EASIER TO JUST DENY IT.....LOL SAYING ...WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.
. I don't believe the doctrines that TULIP represents are biblical. I believe they are in error.
TULIP is not found in the Bible
AND WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF ERROR YOU OFFER INSTEAD.
, but "dispensation" is.
SURE IT IS.... BUT DISPENSATIONALISM IS NOT:laugh:
Nice post and solid article....Owen is the best.
Most of the reformed seemed to have taken over from Rome the A mil viewpoints,as the majority of their time was spent in teaching and promoting the real Gospel, not getting into for them secondary aspects like the future events yet to come!
As don't think calvin himself even wrote a main commentary on revelation...
13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);
28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:
29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Ro 2
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. Ro 3
4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Ro 9
Israel forfeited her advantages she once had over the nations. They were the legitimate 'sons of the kingdom' and then found themselves cast out into the outer darkness while the nations took their place reclining with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But take note, 'immortality' was not one of the advantages the Jew had over the Gentile. Their advantages were blessings from God in this temporal realm.
...Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever.... Mt 21:19
34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:
35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Mt 23
21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18
I don't know what you consider this political entity to be that today goes by the name 'Israel', but I assure you the entity described above is gone, forever.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, not any of "us" that is, non-cals. Who? Which of "us," non-cals have admitted to believing in it? It is your accusation, not our admission.My opinion was that he was wrong, and I demonstrated how he was. It was based in fact.
Yes, you are right. The exact words were "false doctrine," --same meaning.
The exact quote was:
1. It is not false doctrine, just as Spurgeon did not hold to false doctrine.
2. Dispensationalism is not error foisted on gullible Christians. Were all the ECF (Chiliasts) gullible?
3. Dispensationalism existed long before Darby. Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist with an outline very similar to that of Scofield. Remember we are speaking of dispensations. Even the ECF believed in dispensations. So did the Apostle Paul. Look the word up in a concordance.
Spurgeon was a dispensationalist. His writings demonstrate it. If you read the links I gave to you, you would not be able to deny this truth. The fact that he was a historic premillennialist does not deny his dispensationalism. It also proves his believe in the premillennial return of Christ, his belief in the separation of church and Israel, his belief in a literal and earthly millennial kingdom--all of which you deny. I never said he believed "exactly" as I believe. No two men believe "exactly" the same, unless one of them doesn't have any brains to think for himself.
Let's consider that word "heretic" for it used but one time in the Bible, in Acts 24:14.Spurgeon was no heretic; neither are the other dispensationalists on this board.
N
Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
--Thayer's Greek Lexicon says of this word:
Concerning the way the word is used in this verse, Vine, in his Word Studies, says:Thus the word is used in the sense of causing division.
Actually the phrase that OR used, "false doctrine," is even a stronger word than the way "heresy" is used in the Bible, making the charge that much worse.
You do the search. The ECF were Chiliasts. That means they believed in the Millennial Kingdom. They believed in the literal Second Coming. Obviously they believed in dispensations. We just named a couple. Others have researched it out for you. Your policy of: deny, deny, deny is well known.
As I said previously, Scofield's dispensational outline is so similar to that of Isaac Watts, many believe that he may have gotten it from Watts, not from Darby.
It is sad that believers today do not believe that the gospel and its evangelical teachings as we believe it today was not present during or before the Reformation. That is truly sad. It is sad to see that many posters here have been so brainwashed by the RCC to believe that they are the only "Christians" to have existed during certain eras of history, when they were never Christians in the first place.
He didn't have to. The inference was obvious. Christianity did not come from Adam, Abraham or Israel. It came from Christ. The very word "Christianity" means "followers of Christ." Who do you follow?
The statement he made (in the light of Christianity) is:Your contention (or theory) is very much like some of the extreme Landmarker's which believe that to be a "true Baptist" you must be baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist...right down to the disciples. Yes, you say, God has had his people right back to ...who did you say??? Right back to his disciples??? You have that genealogy written down right? Just like the Mormons do? They are the ones who claim they can trace their genealogy back to Adam, and they are the chosen race. You are claiming close to the same thing.
YOU CANNOT HANDLE THE ACCURACY OF HIS STATEMENTS....S
"This Baptist has never adopted the "replacement" doctrine. I believe that GOD has had one people throughout time,..."
--But this is not true. God has called out different people at different times in history. We are not all of one lineage. That is the point.
This entire premise contradicts John 1:13
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--God called out different peoples at different times by faith. Faith is the underlying reason why different individuals were called by God.
Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.
Thus Israel still exists today. One day Israel will turn to Christ as a nation.
One cannot nullify those promises in the prophetic portions of scripture given to the nation of Israel. We are not of the blood and stock of Israel, as is being put forth here. Christ came into this world as a Jew. We are not.
Salvation is of the Jews, Christ said. Your theology involves genealogy.
Salvation is by faith.
Different peoples in different eras all called out by faith.
Salvation is by faith in Christ, not by genealogy.
I put my faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently he saved me. Then Christ, by the power of His Holy Spirit began to change me. How do you know you were regenerated before that time?
On THIS board You are the only one to use this terminology. No one else has.
SEVERAL OF US HAVE CORRECTLY USED THIS TERM...IT IS AND HAS BEEN USED IN RECENT CHURCH HISTORY TO DESCRIBE THIS ERROR.
Give me the URL where any of the non-Cals have admitted belief in it, or apologize for false accusations. Not every dispensationalist believes the same thing.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
If you can't see it you need more study.
The above verses demonstrated dispensationalism in a nutshell.
except that God promised that isreal would have the messiah rule and reign over them, as a greater king david, and that he also said that by his own name and by his own oath that he would not forsake national isreal in the end, as you would make Him be doing!
I don't deny that at all. That happens in the Millennial Kingdom as prophesied in Isaiah many times over.
Lol......so among dispensationalists. ....the sixth dispensation that you want to call the "church" age....
What is God doing with Israel during this period between the cross and the rapture???
Tell me how you exactly view God dealing with Israel during this time...lol...tell me exactly how you differ from Dwight Pentecost view. .....and still claim to be a dispensationalist. ...
O.R. has given the view that defined the position historically before it got beat up like a piñata. ....
Of course many now say.....oh no ....I do not believe that.......yeah sure...I could put David Jeremiah on any day of the week and still hear the view being taught.
What is God doing with Israel during this period between the cross and the rapture???
Tell me how you exactly view God dealing with Israel during this time...lol...tell me exactly how you differ from Dwight Pentecost view. .....and still claim to be a dispensationalist. ...
O.R. has given the view that defined the position historically before it got beat up like a piñata. ....
Of course many now say.....oh no ....I do not believe that.......yeah sure...I could put David Jeremiah on any day of the week and still hear the view being taught.
..........:thumbs: