I see in this response the same arrogance I see in most dispensationalists.
How so? Telling you what I believe and what I believe it is somehow arrogant? So what is it when you tell me what you believe? Is that not arrogant as well? Why is espousing and defending one’s beliefs arrogant?
Anyone who does not agree with the dispensational error just doesn't believe the Bible.
I haven’t said that. I think you have some issues. But as I have said, it about hermeneutics, what we believe about how words are used. At times, I have for a point of emphasis called it a matter of belief, and at those times I have probably overstated my case particularly given the rancor that you received it with. I think in another conversation with another person that probably would have been received without difficulty, but as I said before, I could have and should have put it a different way.
Just above you said it was arrogant for dispensationalists to say anyone who doesn’t agree with them doesn’t believe the Bible. But here, you say that because I don’t agree with you I don’t believe the Bible. Why can you do it?
As I said above and many times, this is not an issue of who believes the Bible, but an issue of hermeneutics … what we believe about how the words of the Bible should be handled.
Then present and explain them.
I did. I devoted long posts in previous threads to Rev 20 which clearly talks about more than one resurrection, to 1 Cor 15 which clearly talks about more than one resurrection. So I have done this already, and cited sources that handle it in more depth than is possible in this forum. So you can search for them. In addition, there are much better documented and much better written books and articles that defend better than I can here.
Again, feel free to disagree, but to say that I haven’t dealt with the issues you have raised is just dishonest.
You accuse me of rude remarks and then post the above. Of course you mean no disrespect but write "but I am not even sure you know what the questions are. It’s like you are cutting and pasting from someone you trust, but you don’t really understand what is being said."
I don’t mean any disrespect. You don’t seem to understand a couple of things. First, we can disagree without it being personal. You go after me personally, and I don’t appreciate that. It doesn’t help, and it makes no sense. I am not your enemy. Second, you don’t seem to get that you might not be as fully aware of issues as you think you are. I know that there are many things, as I study, that I learn that I didn’t even know were questions. I learn more about what the issues actually are. I seriously don’t get the sense from here that you fully grasp what the issues that dispensationalists have are. You might, but it just doesn’t seem like it. Third, we can disagree about eschatology while both loving the gospel and believing firmly in the word, and looking for the return of Christ. No one here is denying the gospel of Christ.
I have had a couple other dispensationalists on this Forum accuse me of plagiarizm.
I don’t think I have ever done that.
Dispensational doctrine is that Jesus Christ offered an earthly Messianic kingdom to the Jews, they rejected Him and He established the Church as a fall back position. I had a thread on this forum last fall where I asked someone anyone to show a single passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ made such an offer and the Jews rejected it. No one did!
You raise this a few posts ago and I pointed out that we did answer the question. You just didn’t like the answer. It’s okay that you don’t like it. I am not bothered by that. But don’t say we didn’t give an answer because we did.
I went back through this thread. I had made 23 posts, you had made 26. I had one post presenting the text of Scripture [my post #84] in response to a post, you had none.
I think I have dealt with quite a bit of Scripture, either directly or indirectly, in response. But the point I am making is that I think I am honestly trying to defend what I believe with interaction. You are simply saying, “That’s not true” and not making any counterarguments to say why it isn’t true.
I have dealt with John 5:28, 29 on this Forum. The Greek word translated hour can mean a period of time. It can also mean a brief period of time as indicated by the admonition of Jesus Christ to the Apostles in the garden and at the crucifixion. There is absolutely no way it can mean 1007+ years
I interacted with this in depth elsewhere, as have others. No one is suggesting that we interpret it as anything other than literal. It is what the literal meaning is that is at stake. But again, does this issue rise to the level of vitriol you seem to have about it. I don’t think so. I have no fear that my exegetical case can stand up. It has for a very long time. You were wrong to accuse me of not believing the Bible because I differ with you about what it says. There are a number of explanations that adequately handle the text that disagree with you.
The teaching of John 5:28, 29 is that in the same hour, this brief, specific period of time, all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, And shall come forth. What else can this mean but a general resurrection, a resurrection that will include everyone, saved and lost, at the return of Jesus Christ and the end of the age.
It can mean that there is a time of judgment coming when everyone will be raised and judged, and that time of judgment must be understood in light of the rest of Scripture which further explains the resurrection. You are placing too much weight on a verse that was not intended to be a comprehensive doctrine of the resurrection. You are, in effect, creating contradictions in the teaching of Jesus because other passages of Scripture clearly show more than a single-point-in-time resurrection.
Your gracious demeanor really shines through here.
If I have been anything less than gracious to you, I apologize. I think, with good conscience, that my comments have been directed at ideas, not at people. I think they have been as gracious as words on a computer screen can be. They certainly come from a heart that desires to show you grace even though we differ. You are very frustrating to be sure, as I probably am to you. But I responding to the ideas that you have put forth.
I suppose you have become adept at that in your chosen profession.
Not sure what that means. My chosen profession is to be a pastor. Do you really want to attack me for that?
But there will be no next time
No next time of me being a pastor?
