Jews vs Christians

[Pastor Larry]

Walvoord doesn't agree with you. He points out that there are many resurrections, not the resurrection of Jesus and then one at the end of the age.
Though I don't have Walvoord handy here with me at the moment, I am fairly confident that Walvoord believed that the "first resurrection" included all stages of the resurrection to life. In a book review, he said, "the idea that the first resurrection can be in more than one stage is rejected categorically. However, according to 1 Corinthians 15:23–24, there are three stages (tagma) of the resurrection of saints: Christ the first, those at His coming second, and those at the end third." (Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 113:298). As you can tell, he considers the first resurrection as having three stages.

There is a good argument to be made that the "first resurrection" is the resurrection to life; the second resurrection is the resurrection the death.

In any event, uses Scripture had proves your wrong. And you have the audacity to believe something else anyway.

 

[OldRegular]

Walvoord doesn't agree with you. He points out that there are many resurrections, not the resurrection of Jesus and then one at the end of the age.
Though I don't have Walvoord handy here with me at the moment, I am fairly confident that Walvoord believed that the "first resurrection" included all stages of the resurrection to life. In a book review, he said, "the idea that the first resurrection can be in more than one stage is rejected categorically. However, according to 1 Corinthians 15:23–24, there are three stages (tagma) of the resurrection of saints: Christ the first, those at His coming second, and those at the end third." (Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 113:298). As you can tell, he considers the first resurrection as having three stages.

There is a good argument to be made that the "first resurrection" is the resurrection to life; the second resurrection is the resurrection the death.

In any event, uses Scripture had proves your wrong. And you have the audacity to believe something else anyway.

I can understand why you are unable to interpret Scripture but at least you should be able to agree with one of your own whether you understand him or not.

previous post by pastor Larry, post #92
The Bible tells us what the first resurrection is, and you disagree with it.'

OldRegular Post #100
Strange, odd, whatever, that you have the audacity to be so wrong. Walvoord agrees with me that the first resurrection is that of Jesus Christ. The resurrection which you insisted is the first [Revelation 20:5], time and again and then again a few more times [posts #81, 87, 90], Walvoord calls the Fifth resurrection. I really believe you need to take off the rose colored glasses and read the post again and perhaps again and then maybe one or two more times. Walvood is correct only about the resurrection of Jesus Christ; however, in everything else he says you both can be consistently wrong.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I can understand why you are unable to interpret Scripture

You haven't shown this. Everytime you have tried, we have looked at Scripture and found out that I do just fine with Scripture. You simply disagree. The bad part for you is that when we look at Scripture, your position doesn't stand up. There are too many verses that you are in direct contradiction to.

but at least you should be able to agree with one of your own whether you understand him or not.

First, what is "one of my own"? I don't konw what you are talking about. Second, why would I agree with someone before I understood him?

Now my suspicion is that you have misrepresented Walvoord. As I quoted above, I think he believes that the first resurrection takes place in stages, which is what I have already said. Now, I will have to check on that because I want to make sure I represent him rightly. (Recently you tried quoting somebody and totally messed it up, plus the fact that we have seen how you deal with Scripture, so you can probably understand why I am hesitant to take your word for anything.)

But the fact is that the first resurrection is the resurrection to life. It doesn't happen all at one time. It happens in stages. And I imagine that is what Walvoord believes. Again, just read the quote I gave above.

 

[OldRegular]

Now my suspicion is that you have misrepresented Walvoord.

That is not true and if you check the reference you will see that I represented him correctly. Sadly you cannot bring yourself to agree that the analysis of Walvoord disproves what you post, therefore, you accuse me of lying. It is a fact that whatever reference I post which you cannot disprove is followed by a statement that I misrepresent it.

I had planned not to respond to anything you posted on this Forum but they are so unscriptural I felt I needed to do so, but no more.

You have implied or stated more than once that I have lied on this thread. That is despicable but consistent with my experience with you some years ago.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That is not true and if you check the reference you will see that I represented him correctly. Sadly you cannot bring yourself to agree that the analysis of Walvoord disproves what you post, therefore, you accuse me of lying. It is a fact that whatever reference I post which you cannot disprove is followed by a statement that I misrepresent it.

I took a moment to google "Walvoord first resurrection." Lo and behold, the first result links to a book I have in my office that I was going to check this morning. Let's look at it:

Accordingly there is a series of resurrections that the Bible presents, namely, Christ’s first, then the resurrection of the Matthew 27, then the Rapture, and then the resurrection of Old Testament saints and tribulations saints after the Tribulation. This is not a contradiction at all as they all are first or before the final resurrection. (Walvoord, The Rapture Question, p. 204).

Here's another quote from Walvoord:

The idea that the first resurrection can be in more than one stage is taught in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24. Three stages (τάγμα) of the resurrection of the saints are included: Christ, first; those at His coming, second; and those at the end, third.(http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5541)

The term “the first resurrection” refers to all resurrections of the righteous even though they are widely separated in time. They are all “first,” that is, before the final resurrection of the wicked. Accordingly, the term “first resurrection “applies to all the resurrections of the saints regardless of when they occur, including the resurrection of Christ himself” (Chafer and Walvoord, Major Bible Themes, p. 341).

So you accuse me of being wrong, but once again the actual facts are on my side. Walvoord believes that the first resurrection is the resurrection to life, and takes places in various stages. This is what I said a number of pages ago.

The first resurrection, for most dispensationalists, takes place in stages because the first resurrection is the resurrection to life. All resurrections to life are part of the first resurrection.

Now, here's the question: Will you admit that you were wrong? I don't care whether you agree with me or Walvoord. I don't even agree with Walvoord on everything. But the fact is that you misrepresented him and me.

I had planned not to respond to anything you posted on this Forum but they are so unscriptural I felt I needed to do so, but no more.

You should have stopped a long time ago. You haven't dealt with Scripture. You have been fairly rude. And you have misrepresented people. And on top of all that, you have been pretty lax in dealing with Scripture. None of those are good for Christians, or for public discourse even among unbelievers. Surely we should expect better here.

I hope you will respond at least once to acknowledge you were incorrect about Walvoord. That would be a good first step towards addressing the damage you have done here.

You have implied or stated more than once that I have lied on this thread. That is despicable but consistent with my experience with you some years ago.

Great ... launch into another personal attack. Why not just deal with Scripture? I don't know that i have implied or stated that you lied. I think you have been inaccurate in many cases, and have shown that, as I did with Walvoord above. Not knowing your intent or your understanding, I don't know whether it was a lie or not. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your mistakes were in good conscience, not with the intent to deceive. Therefore, I don't think you lied. But you are still wrong.

Do you honestly think that I wasn't pretty sure what Walvoord believed when I corrected you? If I didn't know, I wouldn't have said so. As it was, I said "I think" or some such to indicate that I wasn't 100% positive, but was fairly certain. With Chafer that you cited last week, I was less certain, but still pretty certain. The fact is that when I say something, particularly about factual matters, I try to make sure I can back it up. I don't want the embarrassment of being wrong.

I can thank you for this: Over the past few weeks you have caused me to review what I believe and what the Bible says. I haven't thought about this for quite a while much because the Bible doesn't spend a lot of time on it. It is a more tangential issue in many ways. But due to this discussion, I have gone back and done some reading and thinking, and thanks to you, am still convinced that the Scripture teaches dispensationalism. Christ will come again, set up his kingdom on earth, raise the believers to life eternal, raise the unbelievers to eternal damnation.

If you disagree with the exact timing of that, that's fine with me. It doesn't really bother me. But at least be accurate and fair when you cite people.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Larry and OldRegular,

Please both be peace each other, no criticize, or insult each other either.

I would like to show you something in Walvoord's book- 'The Rapture Question', I have it with me in my library.

He wrote: "[Italic]Accordingly, there is a series of resurrection that the Bible presents, namely,Christ's first, then the resurrection of Matthew 27, then the Rapture, and then the resurrection of Old Testament saints and tribulation saints after the Tribulation. This is not a contradiction as they all are first or before the final resurrection. The argument is therefore without merit as it is built on the wrong meaning of this word first.[/Italic]" - pp. 208

Walvoord discussed on Revelation 20 of 'first'.

Walvoord awares that Jesus Christ becames the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23).

My understanding of Rev. 20:4-6 giving the scene of faithful saints' souls are now reigning with Christ in heaven since they died in their faith for almost 2,000 years since after Christ's resurrection.

Notice Rev. 20:4, John said in his vision: "and I saw the souls of them." John said in his vision that, he saw the souls of them were killed by beheaded, refused compromise with world, doing testimony for Christ's sake. Now, their souls are in the heaven reigning with Christ. The second death have no power over them. That is called the "first resurrection". It pictured as have eternal life with Christ. Rev. 20:4,6 speaking of overcame saints who alreaqdy victory over the world, flesh, and Satan at their death, now their souls are in the heaven with the Lord, and they are reigning with Christ for almost 2,000 years.

Bible doesn't teaching us there are "series" of the resurrection.

Bible teaches us that, there are only two resurrections - 1. Jesus Christ 2. future resurrection of the all ages saints according to 1 Cor. 15:23-24.

1 Cor. 15:23-24 - "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."

This passage telling us very clear, there are two orders of resurrection: 1. Jesus Christ became the firstfruits of the resurrection almost 2,000 years ago. THEN, the next reurrection will be follow at Christ's coming, all ages of all saints both O.T. and N.T. saints shall be resurrection same time according to John 5:28-29 on the last day of this present age(John 6:39,40,44, & 54).

I do not believe that there are schism or divisions within the Body of Christ. For example- At the "Rapture", only "Church Saints" will be resurrection. But, the Old Testament saints' bodies are still remain in the graves have to wait for till second advent occurs(as some pretribs teaching it). Also, anyone who will miss Rapture. But they will have another second chance to become saved during Tribulation Period. Many saints will be killed during Tribulation Period, then when Christ comes("Second Coming"), all O.T. saints and Tribulation saints will be resurrection.

That teaching do not make sense to me. That teaching make Christ's body looks divided.

I believe that the Bible teaches us there is only one unity body of Christ of both O.T. saints and N.T. saints, throughout all ages from the beginning to the end, all are one unity in body of Christ. When Christ comes at Second Coming, all saints of all ages shall hear His voice and will come out of the graves for the resurrection at once.

Dan. 12:1-2 supports John 5:28-29 and John 6:39,40,44, & 54 that the resurrection will follow on the last day of this present age follow at Second Coming, that's it. Very simple and plain.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bible doesn't teaching us there are "series" of the resurrection.

But Walvoord conclusively answered that from 1 Cor 15, as well as other passages. Jesus Christ then those who are his at his coming. Already you have Jesus Christ and those just after the crucifixion in Matthew 27.

This passage telling us very clear, there are two orders of resurrection: 1. Jesus Christ became the firstfruits of the resurrection almost 2,000 years ago. THEN, the next reurrection will be follow at Christ's coming, all ages of all saints both O.T. and N.T. saints shall be resurrection same time according to John 5:28-29 on the last day of this present age(John 6:39,40,44, & 54).

But you have Matthew 27 which reveals a resurrection, 1 Thess 4 which reveals one, and others. You have to include those in your understanding.

I do not believe that there are schism or divisions within the Body of Christ.

I don't either. I don't know of any dispensationalist who does. Perhaps you do. You see, the difference is not about you believing there are no schisms in the body while we believe there are. The difference is that we define the body of Christ differently. The question is, Which is the biblical definition? I daresay you can find no place in Scripture where any OT saint is said to be in the body of Christ. That is a theological assertion, not a biblical one. And it's fine to make those, but you have to realize their dangers. In this case, I think the Bible clearly defines the body of Christ.

 

[HankD]

The one thing that is proven in this thread is that there is disagreement concerning the details of "dispensationalism" among the adherents.

But every view of Scripture interpretation and every systematic theolgy has those differences even within the several camps.

To get back to the major theme which appears to be whether Israel as a earthly nation yet has a future here on the earth before the conflagration of 2 Peter 3.

I believe it does and I have quoted several passages of Scripture that indicate Israel will be restored as a "Christian" (believing in Christ) nation.

That they will one day, as a nation, repent of their disbelief and mourn and receive Him as their long-awaited Messiah.

If that makes me a racist (as has been indicated) then so be it.

The Jewish leadership did not crucify Christ because of their race.

They along with the Gentiles crucified Christ because of their sin nature with which we are all inflicted.

Acts 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.​

In the list of human responsibility at least in this passage the "people of Israel" come last (Herod was not techically a "Jew").

But look at verse 28 and see That the Father allowed Him to be delivered up to the collaboration of Jews and Gentiles for the salvation of the human race (those who will come to Him).

The Scripture is clear (IMO) that Israel has not been permanently set aside or doomed.

In fact, to say that they have been permanently set aside seems more racist to me than to say it is temporary "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled".

Another fact is that there is an undeniable and practical distinction between Israel and the Church, otherwise, get circumcised, mikvahed, buy your prayer shawl, yarmakah, set up a Kosher kitchen, start keeping the Sabbath, the Seven Feasts, etc, etc....

There is a disctinction also because the Church is not Judaism but Christianity and Trinitarian in theology.

Today's Judaism is not even biblical Judaism. It is Talmudic Judaism.

There is no Temple, there is not even a Red Heifer to be burned and the ashes mingled with "holy" water to cleanse the Temple Site (Herodian) in Jerusalem.

In fact there it is a Moslem worship site where Jews can only enter under strict supervision.

Jesus prohesied this in parabolic form:

Luke 5

36 And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.
37 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
38 But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
39 No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.​

What follows this parable in Luke 6?
The dispute concerning the Sabbath where Jesus allowed the disciples to do "work" on the Sabbath.​

Luke 6:5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.​

The manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth and its government and economy was going to change and this was a foretaste IMO.​

If it were not a temporary setting aside then one needs to contemplate what He had taught those who followed Him to cause the disciples to ask Jesus this question:​

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

We all know the answer, it wasn't time yet, they had a mission to accomplish.​

Besides...

Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.​

Notice He didn't say that Israel would not be restored but that it was not (presently) for them to know the when and the where of what the Father was going to do.​

This is what He will do:

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.​

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.
4 Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old, and as in former years.​

Zechariah 14

3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Isaiah 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.​

Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

HankD​

 

[OldRegular]

If it were not a temporary setting aside then one needs to contemplate what He had taught those who followed Him to cause the disciples to ask Jesus this question:​

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

We all know the answer, it wasn't time yet, they had a mission to accomplish.​

Besides...

Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.​

Notice He didn't say that Israel would not be restored but that it was not (presently) for them to know the when and the where of what the Father was going to do.​

Neither did he say that it would. He simply said it was none of their business!:love2: :love2: :BangHead: :tonofbricks: