Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Apparently some individuals would rather take a nap than check references and quotes to determine what is true and what is not.

 

Hmm, there is an accusation, but where is the evidence?

 

He gave you a reference in "WARNING!!! The pastor who wrote this article teaches many false doctrines, including KJO extremism and that born-again Baptists who sin will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ.'

Sounds like a 1000 year purgatory. Does he accept indulgences too? With all his preaching against the RCC it seems that the RCC has pervaded his doctrine of hell and purgatory.

Was that not sufficient?

 

What man needs to refute a pastor who teaches that born-again Baptists who sin will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ when God has already refuted and rebuked that pastor in the Bible!

 

He gave you a reference in "WARNING!!! The pastor who wrote this article teaches many false doctrines, including KJO extremism and that born-again Baptists who sin will spend 1,000 years in hell before going to be with Christ.'

Sounds like a 1000 year purgatory. Does he accept indulgences too? With all his preaching against the RCC it seems that the RCC has pervaded his doctrine of hell and purgatory.

Was that not sufficient? </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose it is sufficient for someone who doesn't check their references, right Craig? I didn't realize that debating was so simple. Look at him, he believes like the JW's. I win!

 

Duh! You posted it yourself!

 

The pastor even quotes second hand sources too, found at http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article570.cfm

Just an example of less than high school scholarship.

 

Stop hurting my feelings, guys, your going to make me cry.

 

I suppose it is sufficient for someone who doesn't check their references, right Craig? [/QB][/QUOTE]

Do you really think believers will spend 1000 years in hell? What scripture do you have to support that idea?

 

We had a 20 pager on it not too long ago.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/2431.html?

 

and a few others as well

 

All I can say is take a few minutes and grab a concordance to see how believe and belief is used and then tell us what you found about what a believer is.

Regarding your 1000 years idea is that what you would call purgatory?

Sured doesn't fit with what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5:8, "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."

Try looking at Luke 16:20-31, ""And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and [that] none may cross over from there to us.' "And he said, `Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "But Abraham ^said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' "But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.' "

 

I'm sure we touched on luke 16 somewher in that thread. I am leaving for the day and will probably not post any until the day after Christmas. Read through it and some of the others, and if you can find an argument that hasn't been brought up already, lets discuss it. I will concede that it is 'like purgatory'. That doesn't mean it isn't true. The reasons purgatory are unbiblical are not because it teaches that a believer might be punished after death. And no, my pastor does not sell indulgences.

 

Read 9, 10 and 11.

 

WARNING !!! Pay no attention to that little man by the sea! He doesn't know what he saith! I am the Great OZ!



In HIS service;
Jim

 

Another thing I wonder is how a dispensationalist could ever support capital punishment because they believe we are under the dispensation of grace and because of that the law is no longer valid. In effect the law is done away with. If that is the case, then capital punishment is done away with.

 

Wrong. Thank you for pointing out again that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

The Law (Old Covenant) was done away with by Christ. John says as much in 1:17.

Christ and Paul each affirmed the right of the government to take a person's life.

Keep posting, you only embarrass yourself in this discussion.

 

But not as a mistake or a second plan. Some dispensationalists teach that, but dispenationalism does not. You are not making adequate distinctions and you are thus operating off of straw men. Please stop.

Back off OR. I did not say you lied. I said this thread was filled with untruths, which is undeniable. It is a fact. However, you are probably simply mistaken, rather than lying. Lying carries with it the intent, and I am not accusing your of intending to be wrong about dispensationalism. But even though your untruths are unintentional, they are still untrue.

But as I suspected about Ryrie and literal interpretation, you did not rightly representation. On pages 90-91, he says exactly what I said, and exactly what MacArthur said. OR, you make it hard for me to believe that you have arrived at studied conclusinos when you make such egregious errors that are easily solved by studying your opponents. As I often tell arminians, you don't have to be a Calvinist like I am, but at least disagree with what I believe, not with what you wish I believed. Ryrie directly answered your objection about figures of speech in his book, as I suspected.

 

Or that all too often used category of late known as Craig doesn't know what he is talking about. Merriam Webster is not a theological dictionary and should not be used to define theological ideas and terms. Literal interpretation is clearly defined in numerous hermeneutics books. IT would do you well to expand your knowledge.

You are certainly full of yourself and it is obviously without merit. You are wrong, simply put. There is no more clear way to say it. You don't know what you are talking about and you have demonstrated that. Read Ryrie; read Showers, read Terry; read McClain; read read read ... Don't make up your own ideas.

No, actually I am right. If you had studied as much you claim, you would know that. This point is so rudimentary, any educated dispensationalist would laugh their heads off at your claim.

Larry, this is absolutely false information and you owe everyone on this board an apology for posting this false information!</font>[/QUOTE]I posted no false information and if you had studied more than me about this, then you would know that. The good thing is that you don't take my word for it. I can prove my point by using readily available published resources (some of which are too deep for some to plow through). This is what the following advocated:
For a representative defense of the single intent/authorial intention model, see E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967); Walter C. Kaiser, “The Single Intent of Scripture,” in Evangelical Roots: A Tribute to Wilbur Smith, ed. K. S. Kantzer (Nashville: Nelson, 1978); and Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974).

Your previous comments about literalism showed that you did. Your comments were well written about translation. They were almost completely inaccurate about interpretation. Literal interpretation has nothing to do with "word for word" vs. "thought for thought." If you have studied as you as you claim, then you should not be making this mistake. Literal interpretation is about the authority of the text and the plain meaning of the words. Again, I have given you sources to help your understanding.

[/qb]This is absurd. Read Hirsch's Validity in Interpretation to see this. The author's intent is what drives meaning. If he misspeaks, then he miscommunicates. See above. You are just completely wrong on literal intepreration.

Your rebuke should be directed at yourself. You are simply wrong. I have given the published sources that clearly refute your mistaken notions. I cannot take you seriously. You have made too many mistakes and this is simply another in a long line. You are misrepresenting your opponent in this matter. If this is what you were taught, then you should demand your money back. You were taught wrongly. The resources I have given will clearly show that to be the case.