Post tribulation arguments

[OldRegular]

The two witnesses represent Christian evangelism throughout the Gospel age.
rather than attempt a hugely long post to try and justify that, here's a link:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/20...-7-the-temple-measured-and-the-two-witnesses/

Well said MM!

 

[DHK]

This is what the position is.....if it is not yours...do not call yourself a dispensationalist......do not mix the views together unless you are going to state you have a mixed up view.

Your view is: "Unless it is dispensationalism according to Darby it is not dispensationalism." Nonsense.
Darby has become your rule of faith and order and the Bible has been discarded.

But in order that you may see that others used "dispensation" as used in the Bible, do not adhere to Darby, I will give you some authoritative definitions:

From the Easton Bible Dictionary:

(Gr. oikonomia, "management," "economy"). (1.) The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation. There are usually reckoned three dispensations, the Patriarchal, the Mosaic or Jewish, and the Christian. (See Covenant, Administration of.) These were so many stages in God's unfolding of his purpose of grace toward men. The word is not found with this meaning in Scripture.

Watson's Biblical and Theological Encyclopedia

DISPENSATIONS, DIVINE. These are otherwise called "the ways of God," and denote those schemes or methods which are devised and pursued by the wisdom and goodness of God, in order to manifest his perfections and will to mankind, for the purpose of their instruction, discipline, reformation, and advancement in rectitude of temper and conduct, in order to promote their happiness. These are the grand ends of the divine dispensations; and in their aptitude to promote these ends consist their excellence and glory. The works or constitutions of nature are, in a general sense, divine dispensations, by which God condescends to display to us his being and attributes, and thus to lead us to the acknowledgment, adoration, and love, of our Creator Father, and Benefactor. The sacred Scriptures reveal and record other dispensations of divine providence, which have been directed to the promotion of the religious principles, moral conduct, and true happiness of mankind. These have varied in several ages of the world, and have been adapted by the wisdom and goodness of God to the circumstances of his intelligent and accountable creatures. In this sense the various revelations which God has communicated to mankind at different periods, and the means he has used, as occasion has required, for their discipline and improvement, have been justly denominated divine dispensations. Accordingly, we read in the works of theological writers of the various dispensations of religion; that of the patriarchs, that of Moses, and that of Christ, called the dispensation of grace, the perfection and ultimate object of every other. All these were adapted to the conditions of the human race at these several periods; all, in regular succession, were mutually connected and rendered preparatory one to the other; and all were subservient to the design of saving the world, and promoting the perfection and happiness of its rational and moral inhabitants.

ISBE

dis-pen-sa'-shun: The Greek word (oikonomia) so translated signifies primarily, a stewardship, the management or disposition of affairs entrusted to one. Thus 1 Cor 9:17, the King James Version "A dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me," the Revised Version (British and American) "I have stewardship entrusted to me." The idea is similar in Eph 3:2 parallel Col 1:25 (the Revised Version, margin "stewardship"). In Eph 1:10 God's own working is spoken of as "dispensation."

Fausett

Various dispensations have been traced in the development of God's dealings with mankind.

No, the definition of "dispensation" is not according to "Icon" or according to "OR" or any of their authorities. It is according to the Word of God. And if Ryrie, Chafer, Darby think they own the word, or the other Calvinists on this board think they have paid the price for the word, it would be interesting to know the price they paid. I could sell you a plot of land on Pluto.
Ownership of a word does not belong to you.
It is defined in the context of which it is found, and how it has been used throughout history.

 

[DHK]

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;
red herring
You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;
red herring..it is past
You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;
red herring

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;
red herring

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.
Chiliasts are not premill dispys....lol

you cannot

And there is the essence of pre-Darby dispensationalism, which Icon simply dismisses as "a red herring," and cannot refute--by his own admission.

 

[Iconoclast]

Your view is: "Unless it is dispensationalism according to Darby it is not dispensationalism." Nonsense.
Darby has become your rule of faith and order and the Bible has been discarded.

But in order that you may see that others used "dispensation" as used in the Bible, do not adhere to Darby, I will give you some authoritative definitions:

From the Easton Bible Dictionary:


Watson's Biblical and Theological Encyclopedia


ISBE


Fausett


No, the definition of "dispensation" is not according to "Icon" or according to "OR" or any of their authorities. It is according to the Word of God. And if Ryrie, Chafer, Darby think they own the word, or the other Calvinists on this board think they have paid the price for the word, it would be interesting to know the price they paid. I could sell you a plot of land on Pluto.
Ownership of a word does not belong to you.
It is defined in the context of which it is found, and how it has been used throughout history.

No one is talking about the word....DISPENSATION......

Nobody.....

the issue is DISPENSATIONALISM...... it is two different things...this again is a deliberate blurring of the words and teachings....we all see right through it.

stop it.

Your anti Cal agenda..... is showing through.....you cannot win on this ,so you seek to confuse the issue. I know who you are, I know what you are, you are not fooling me at all..... I have known all along......

Do you realize that almost no one interacts with you anymore????

How come that is not true of any of the moderators???

You get caught...then you project the very thing you are caught on on the person who caught you.
Yet you seem oblivious as the old Mr.Magoo cartoon of him walking in the middle of traffic....https://www.bing.com/images/search?...58DB3B14A6105B033429CE4B3958E98A9&FORM=IQFRBA

 

[Iconoclast]

here you go;
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...91b7a823854597cd7fa2e447674f62f5o0&ajaxhist=0


http://digitalsojourner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DispensationsRlatest.png

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism

you do not get to redefine what was.....no one believes what you are offering.....this I found in less that 4 minutes

 

[DHK]

here you go;
https://www.bing.com/images/search?...91b7a823854597cd7fa2e447674f62f5o0&ajaxhist=0


http://digitalsojourner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DispensationsRlatest.png

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/dispensationalism/421-what-is-dispensationalism

you do not get to redefine what was.....no one believes what you are offering.....this I found in less that 4 minutes

Here is a quote from your last link:

Theologians continue to argue over the origin of dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists argue that the basic beliefs of dispensationalism were held by the apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not dispensationalists often argue that dispensationalism is a new theology that began in the 19th century. What is clear, though, is that dispensationalism, as a system, began to take shape in the mid-1800s.

It is obvious that many disagree with the "Calvinistic" links or at least "like-minded" links that you have posted. I have posted in the past (and can post again), how the ECF and many others up to and including Isaac Watts believed in dispensationalism. This is an indisputable fact.

Again you don't get to define the terms, neither do your friends, or even your "friendly links." The quote above demonstrates that there are many that believe that dispensationalism originates with the apostles, as do I. It is taught in the scriptures. Of course it originates with the apostles.

Of course you will oppose me.
I will oppose you on the same grounds as Calvinism.
Calvinism is not in the scriptures and did not enter history until some time in the 1500's. Correct?

 

[Iconoclast]

Now all that leads us to this: if you get Israel right you will get eschatology right. If you don't get Israel right you will never get eschatology right. Never. And you'll migrate from one view to another just depending on the last book you read or the last lecture you heard . . . . If you get eschatology right it's because you get Israel right. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament covenants and promises right. You get the Old Testament covenants and promises right when you get the interpretation of Scripture right. You get interpretation of Scripture right when you're faithful to a legitimate hermeneutic and God's integrity is upheld. Get your hermeneutics right, you'll get the Old Testament promises right. Get promises right, you'll get Israel right. Get Israel right, you'll get eschatology right. The Bible calls God the God of Israel over 200 times. The God of Israel. There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers; the Israel of God. Israel always means Israel, never means anything but Israel. Seventy three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”


here is John M...and here is a reply;
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

john m-

“Now all that leads us to this: if you get Israel right you will get eschatology right. If you don't get Israel right you will never get eschatology right. Never. And you'll migrate from one view to another just depending on the last book you read or the last lecture you heard . . . . If you get eschatology right it's because you get Israel right. You get Israel right when you get the Old Testament covenants and promises right. You get the Old Testament covenants and promises right when you get the interpretation of Scripture right. You get interpretation of Scripture right when you're faithful to a legitimate hermeneutic and God's integrity is upheld. Get your hermeneutics right, you'll get the Old Testament promises right. Get promises right, you'll get Israel right. Get Israel right, you'll get eschatology right. The Bible calls God the God of Israel over 200 times. The God of Israel. There are over 2,000 references to Israel in Scripture, not one of them means anything but Israel. Not one of them, including Romans 9:6 and Galatians 6:16 which is the only two passages that amillennialists go to trying to convince us that that cancels out the other 2,000. There is no difficulty in interpreting those as simply meaning Jews who were believers; the Israel of God. Israel always means Israel, never means anything but Israel. Seventy three New Testament uses of Israel always mean Israel.”

an answer;

While I'll respond to MacArthur's argument about the number of times the Bible speaks of Israel a bit later, at this point let me just say that Dr. MacArthur is absolutely correct about one thing: Get your hermeneutics right and you will get your eschatology right. But here’s precisely where we part ways with Dr. MacArthur and his dispensational presupposition that because national Israel lies at the heart of all biblical eschatology and covenants, the Old Testament promises made to national Israel are the hermeneutical center of Scripture. As an amillennarian, I assign that place to Jesus Christ, who, the New Testament tells me, is the true Israel.

Understanding the difference between the amillennial hermeneutic and the dispensational hermeneutic is the key to understanding the essence of this debate. Every major dispensational theologian from Walvoord to Pentecost to Ryrie to MacArthur himself, insists that God has two distinct redemptive programs–one for national Israel and one for the Gentiles. MacArthur clearly affirms this dispensational presupposition in the quote above.

Reformed amillennarians reject this understanding of God's redemptive purposes. God’s purpose is not to save two distinct peoples (divided by ethnicity), but to save his people (the elect), a multitude which no man can number (Revelation 7:9), and which includes each and every one of those whom God has chosen, whether they be Jew or Gentile.

In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul addresses this very point when discussing God’s redemptive purpose for Gentiles and national Israel. Here, Paul flat-out contradicts the dispensational assertion that God has distinct redemptive purposes for national Israel and for the church. According Paul, God’s purpose in the New Covenant is to remove the ethnic distinctions between Jew and Gentile (between Israel and the church) which had been dividing them. Paul says that Jesus came to tear down the barrier wall which formerly divided the two, in order to make the two peoples into one so as to form Jew and Gentile together into the one living temple of the Lord–the church. In this spiritual temple, Christ is the chief cornerstone, and the foundation is the prophets and apostles.

While dispensationalists will concede that this is God’s purpose for the present age, they say Israel’s distinct role resurfaces again after the Rapture when the Gentile church is removed from the earth. This dual redemptive purpose then carries on throughout the millennial age after Christ comes back. If true, this means that it is Christ’s purpose to make the two peoples one is only temporary. God intends to divide Israel (ethnic Jews) again from the Gentiles after the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11).

Of course, this makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, such a view forces us to see the future millennial age as something completely distinct from Christ’s redemptive purpose under the New Covenant. On these terms, the as-yet future millennium marks a return to Old Testament types and shadows and ignores the fact that the reality is Christ. This not only means that redemptive history takes a giant U-turn after Christ comes back, amounting to a return to the types and shadows which preceded the coming of the Messiah, but it completely ignores the very thing Christ came to do–make the two peoples one by removing all ethnic divisions which previously divided believers!

This is why a Christ-centered hermeneutic changes everything and why this hermeneutic lies at the heart of the differences between Reformed amillennialism and dispensationalism. As Bob Strimple points out in a lecture he often gives on this very topic, there are a number of reasons why Israel’s role in the Old Testament was preparatory to the coming Christ, and can therefore cannot serve as the hermeneutical center of Scripture. The fact is that Christ comes to fulfill (literally) all of the Old Testament promises, not to temporarily put them aside, only to return to them in a future millennium. Strimple bases his view that Christ is the true Israel on the following biblical arguments:

1). Isaiah’s servant songs have a double referent that has long baffled Jewish commentators. On the one hand, they refer to Israel, God’s chosen one and servant (41:8-9; 44:1-2, 21; 45:4; 49:3). On the other, they seem also to refer to some individual (42:1-4). These prophesies are interpreted by the New Testament as referring to Christ (Matthew 8:17 and Acts 8:30-35)

2). Matthew sees a double referent in Hosea 11:1, ("Out of Egypt I called my son")

3). Paul identifies Christ, not physical Israel, as Abraham’s seed (Galatians 3:16). Galatians 3:7 and Romans 4:11, 16, moreover, identify the church as Abraham’s offspring.

4). Henceforth, we are in Christ the true Israel: Galatians 3:26-29, Romans 2:28-29, and Philippians 3:3.

5). The Old Covenant is obsolete, having been superseded by the New: Hebrews 8:8-12 identifies the new covenant with Israel (Jeremiah 31:33-34) with the covenant instituted by Christ with the church. Most importantly, Hebrews 8:13 declares the old covenant obsolete and passing away. This makes impossible the dispensational view of Ezekiel 40-48 as a reinstitution of temple sacrifice.


As Strimple points out, this means that Jesus is the true Israel, and that all Scripture–especially its prophetic sections–must be read through a Christ-centered hermeneutic, not a dispensational one which centers upon national Israel.

In his lecture, MacArthur makes the point that since God elects Israel, and since “Israel means Israel,” any other approach to eschatology destroys the perspicuity of the Old Testament. Yes, Dr. MacArthur is right that Israel always means Israel, but that’s not the point.

When the writers of the New Testament see Israel in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ, they now see that the nation of Israel and the Sinaitic covenant which established it, were intended by God to point ahead to the coming of Jesus. That’s what Paul is getting at in Galatians 3:19-25, when he speaks of the law as intended by God to prepare the way for the coming of Christ. This is because the law exposes our sin and like a school-master drives us to Christ.
. But this same truth is impossible to escape after Jesus steps out of type and shadow onto the center stage of redemption (Galatians 4:4-5). It Jesus who now tells us the true purpose of the Old Covenant–“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39). This is not amillennial "spiritualizing" of Scripture, it is the method of biblical interpretation taught us by Jesus and his apostles!

 

[Iconoclast]

Here is a quote from your last link:

It is obvious that many disagree with the "Calvinistic" links or at least "like-minded" links that you have posted. I have posted in the past (and can post again), how the ECF and many others up to and including Isaac Watts believed in dispensationalism. This is an indisputable fact.

Again you don't get to define the terms, neither do your friends, or even your "friendly links." The quote above demonstrates that there are many that believe that dispensationalism originates with the apostles, as do I. It is taught in the scriptures. Of course it originates with the apostles.

Of course you will oppose me.
I will oppose you on the same grounds as Calvinism.
Calvinism is not in the scriptures and did not enter history until some time in the 1500's. Correct?

I left the quote in there...it is a futile attempt to change the facts. You have not been allowed to see the truth of Calvinism...that is between you and God.
must sleep now...must drive in a few hours.

 

[Darrell C]

She sees more dishonesty and crushes it....here;

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist. He was a Historical Premillennialist. There is a distinction between those two ideas that must be maintained. It is dishonest to push dispensationalism into historical premillennialism when they do not fit together. The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.
Darby, Schofield, Ryrie all make that very clear.
Here is Ryrie:

Quote:
The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction of Israel and the Church.

Quote:
This grows out of the dispensationalists consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself thought salvation and other purposes as well

Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 47.

But now for quotes from Spurgeon himself on this issue.
Charles H. Spurgeon, "Jesus Christ Immutable," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 15:8.
Bold Mine

Quote:
Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ's day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages.


Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall

He considered the idea of Israel and the Church being distinct from each other an " absurdity"
That itself is enough to put him firmly outside of the camp of Dispensationalism.
But for the sake of argument I will continue.
I think we can all agree that another mark of Dispensationalism is the "Pre-Trib" Rapture of the Church.
Well lets see what Spurgeon said about the timing of the Rapture.
To be honest he does not say a lot about the rapture but I did find this sermon

This quote alone shows that Spurgeon believes we will be on earth during the tribulation and that we are to view it as a time to life up our heads waiting for his return.
Some more quotes from this sermon



This sermon shows that if Spurgeon had a view on the rapture it was post-trib. He makes it clear throughout the sermon that he believe we will be on earth during the tribulation. There is no way you can get a pre-trib view out of this sermon.

So there is the two big distinctions between Classical Premillennialism and Dispensational Pre-Millennialism and Spurgeon clearly falls into the Classical camp.


Continued:

The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying...

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist.

Perhaps if she does, she might actually help you see you are in error yourself.

What will it be, BW...truth or friendship.

And I will just say, Iconoclast, that you are giving the impression of infatuation with this member. I am not charging you with that, just saying you are giving that impression. Your fascination with what she has to say coupled with the fact that you don't even bother to consider what is being said...

...raises questions. And I wonder if your wife and her husband (if married) would appreciate this undue fascination.

She sees more dishonesty and crushes it....here;

No, just like you, she creates a false argument and then goes on in an attempt to justify her charge.

She is arguing with herself.

Just as you are.

This is the same disruption you and your friends have been creating on this forum for some time. You derail the topic of the thread and turn it to what you really want to rail against.

Go start your own forum. You obviously have no respect for the other members or staff on this forum, so why not make your little club legitimate. I will even suggest a name: W.A.R. (We are Revilers). Maybe W.O.R.M. (We Offer Reformation Madness).



Okay, just a little humor, but the fact is...nobody cares about your vendetta against people you don't know, and your confusion about Theologies you think you understand. Your rejection of the distinction between Israel and the Church which is clearly presented in Scripture is ludicrous. Your hatred against people who understand that is atrocious. Your incessant disruption among those who sincerely want to understand these issues so they can make a reasoned decision and draw logical conclusions...is satanic.

Sounds harsh, but only Satan wants to keep people from fulfilling this:


Malachi 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.



God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

DHK tries to sneak this in...speaking of the high road

Quote:
If you read carefully the beliefs that he had, there is nothing new.
Premillennialism had been taught before. It simply had "fallen out of favor" for 1500 years. It was not the popular teaching of the day. So it was new to that generation.

Dispensationalism had been taught before. Isaac Watts taught dispensationalism. Some say that the dispensationalism that Watts taught was closer to that of Scofield than Darby's. Many throughout history have taught dispensationalism. It is not new.

How many dispensations are there? People today quibble over the same thing. Why should that be a point of controversy?

He is "sneaking this in"?

The entire point is missed, which is simply that the vies of dispensationalists are not new concepts, and in fact we can see justification for the premise of the doctrinal positions, though we might not, as DHK points out, equate them precisely.

And again I will state that the premise of several of these doctrinal positions you and your buddies rail against are First Century Teachings.

I challenge anyone to discuss it.

I challenged you:

Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
...of course DC...feels he knows better.....lol

I do.

I do know better than people who make Israel the Church.

I do know better than people who deny God has ministered in at sundry times and in divers manners.

I do know better than people who refuse to understand the Mystery of Christ.

I do know better than people who cannot distinguish between the Covenants.

I do know better than people who charge Pre-Tribulational believers with heresy.

I do know better than people who incessantly derail threads until they are closed. Making it impossible for others of similar beliefs to have a discussion. And what makes this worse is not one of your little club can address these issues with a Scriptural Presentation.

Which makes the last point:

I do know better than to try to build my Theology on what men think.[/QUOTE]


No address of the points raised in response to your charge of arrogance and my response to it.

I challenged your quarterback:

You are the one who does that in your inability to comprehend what is being said.

And as far as a dispensational view being incompatible with a historical premillennial view, perhaps if you spent more time in your Bible than reading the theologies of men you might come to understand how ignorant such a statement is.

You will not refute that there are differing Ages or Economies in Biblical History;

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;

You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;

You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.

If you want to try...step up. But don't bring the words of men...we will examine these issues in the Word of God.

But because the goal is not to honestly discuss what is relevant to the posts, much less the topic of the OP, but to disrupt and derail so that your doctrine becomes the topic, I do not ever expect a response to these points.

It had fallen out of favor for 1500 years

It is still out of favor with the more Catholic among the brethren/

You are proving that.

And in typical Catholic fashion the attempt to strangle the Word of God and seize control continues to this day.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Yes I know. One thing I really appreciate about the Bible College I want to is that they were honest about the history of Dispensationalism and what it taught.

It's been amazing to me since I graduated how many want to hide that history and attack those that present the true history. That was one of the major things that lead me away from the dispensationalist camp. Why would they not be honest if they truly believed it was true.

Good point BW....I would have to question that also!.....

So why didn't you ask it?

Because that is not your primary interest.

Shame, shame, Iconoclast.

I am glad to just sit back and be a cheerleader as you unravel this dog and pony show

Here is a little advice, my friend: when the quarterback runs the ball into the wrong end-zone...that's when you stop cheering.

....good work BW!

I will say her efforts are noted, howbeit misdirected.

Can't say the same for her cheerleaders.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
20 plus years of trying and no one has proven the pre-trib rapture to me. But The OP was looking for arguments against the Post Trib view and I gave them one as I also do not believe in a Post-Trib Rapture.

She had already responded to the OP and gave a reason before the thread was derailed....she had to pause...[a parenthesis in the thread:thumbs:to address the falsehoods.

She is one of the primary derailers.

The OP asks that the derailing stop...

Can the preterists and amillenials start there own thread? This is specifically about arguments against a post trib rapture as given by mid trib and pre tribbers. Thank you.

The response:

Dream on. Maybe you can persuade the admins to create a 'dispies only' forum.

And this is typical.

And your quarterback's first post?

Originally Posted by DHK
same old; same old. A lie often repeated does not make it a truth.

Just because you don't believe what Darby taught, does not mean its a lie that he taught the church was a parentheses in God's program. I was taught this at my dispensationalist Bible College.

Now, your statement in this post, where you are supposedly exposing the truth?

She had already responded to the OP and gave a reason before the thread was derailed....

Where is the truth in this, Iconoclast?

Where is the OP responded to, at all...by BW?


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Martin Marprelate View Post
The two witnesses represent Christian evangelism throughout the Gospel age.
rather than attempt a hugely long post to try and justify that, here's a link:
https://marprelate.wordpress.com/201...two-witnesses/

Well said MM!

He didn't say anything, lol.


God bless.

 

[revmwc]

I left the quote in there...it is a futile attempt to change the facts. You have not been allowed to see the truth of Calvinism...that is between you and God.
must sleep now...must drive in a few hours.

Not one thing about dispensanism separates man's salvation. In each dispensation ALL mankind must trust in the same Savior. Genesis 3 says the seed of woman would come. So what did those early generations believe? A Savior was coming because God in His Covenant with Adam promised a savior would come. For Abraham a Covenant of promise was made in the age or dispensation of promise, the Savior would come through the bloodline of Abraham, and the land in which Abraham walked would belong to that natural seed, again it was an unconditional covenant of promise. Dispensational teaching follows right down the line with Gods promises of a Savior coming for mankind. In the dispensation of grace God through Christ church made up of both Jew and Gentile deals with ma kind. We in this age look back to the Savior who came. The church which is called the bride of Christ will be snatched away as shown by Paul and John. God being a God of truth still must fulfill His Promises to Israel of a great time of trouble and an earthly Davidic Kingdom which the Promised Messiah will rule in. To deny that Kingdom is to say God doesn't keep His promises, Dispensationist teach God keeps His word that is His unconditional promises made in each age and for His people. Whether the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (Jacob) or the Gentiles God fulfills those covenants because He is Just

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
True, the more I study the differences between all the camps the more it frustrates me that some Dispensationalist want to sneak into the Historical pre-mill camp to use their history to bolster their claims.

This is quite dishonest as they know exactly what they are doing:thumbs:

What who is doing?

Nobody except those derailing the thread even have any interest in this nonsensical rabbit trail.

You charge dishonesty when it is a false argument which was inserted into a thread about Post/Pre Tribulation views.

And that is about all the time I will waste on your version of truth.

Respond to those posts I have done at this point...and yes, that is a challenge.

You have falsely misrepresented this thread and those participating, and your motives are known to you only. But don't think you have free reign to disrupt at will and no-one will address it.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

What who is doing?

Nobody except those derailing the thread even have any interest in this nonsensical rabbit trail.

You charge dishonesty when it is a false argument which was inserted into a thread about Post/Pre Tribulation views.

And that is about all the time I will waste on your version of truth.

Respond to those posts I have done at this point...and yes, that is a challenge.

You have falsely misrepresented this thread and those participating, and your motives are known to you only. But don't think you have free reign to disrupt at will and no-one will address it.


God bless.

I did send you lengthy post last night but do not see it here....do not worry I will get to your cyber bullying of BW318 again later on today...

I will not only show your shameful posts to this holy woman but will expose your bankrupt theology as well.....by the way...she did offer on the OP ....before your buddy derailed yet another thread...... you did offer on the OP...a couple of times....I offered once as did BW.
I have to drive and then deal with a family matter, but then I will address your unwarranted attack on the godly sister.

 

[McCree79]

I did send you lengthy post last night but do not see it here....

Posts are disappearing from all over the board



Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

She is one of the primary derailers.

The OP asks that the derailing stop...





The response:



And this is typical.

And your quarterback's first post?



Now, your statement in this post, where you are supposedly exposing the truth?





Where is the truth in this, Iconoclast?

Where is the OP responded to, at all...by BW?


God bless.

She responded in at least 61,63....I believe one other time also....

 

[Iconoclast]

Not one thing about dispensanism separates man's salvation. In each dispensation ALL mankind must trust in the same Savior. Genesis 3 says the seed of woman would come. So what did those early generations believe? A Savior was coming because God in His Covenant with Adam promised a savior would come. For Abraham a Covenant of promise was made in the age or dispensation of promise, the Savior would come through the bloodline of Abraham, and the land in which Abraham walked would belong to that natural seed, again it was an unconditional covenant of promise. Dispensational teaching follows right down the line with Gods promises of a Savior coming for mankind. In the dispensation of grace God through Christ church made up of both Jew and Gentile deals with ma kind. We in this age look back to the Savior who came. The church which is called the bride of Christ will be snatched away as shown by Paul and John. God being a God of truth still must fulfill His Promises to Israel of a great time of trouble and an earthly Davidic Kingdom which the Promised Messiah will rule in. To deny that Kingdom is to say God doesn't keep His promises, Dispensationist teach God keeps His word that is His unconditional promises made in each age and for His people. Whether the natural seed of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (Jacob) or the Gentiles God fulfills those covenants because He is Just

Behold....an honest dispensationalist in whom is no guile....lol....or maybe just a little guile:laugh:

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
What who is doing?

Nobody except those derailing the thread even have any interest in this nonsensical rabbit trail.

You charge dishonesty when it is a false argument which was inserted into a thread about Post/Pre Tribulation views.

And that is about all the time I will waste on your version of truth.

Respond to those posts I have done at this point...and yes, that is a challenge.

You have falsely misrepresented this thread and those participating, and your motives are known to you only. But don't think you have free reign to disrupt at will and no-one will address it.


God bless.

I did send you lengthy post last night but do not see it here....

When a post is removed the post itself usually remains, so I guess you are charging the staff with censoring you.

I would be curious to see their response to that charge as to whether it is true or not.

And I am going to continue this because that is a point I would like to see answered.


Continued...

 

[Iconoclast]

The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying...




Perhaps if she does, she might actually help you see you are in error yourself.

What will it be, BW...truth or friendship.

And I will just say, Iconoclast, that you are giving the impression of infatuation with this member. I am not charging you with that, just saying you are giving that impression. Your fascination with what she has to say coupled with the fact that you don't even bother to consider what is being said...

...raises questions. And I wonder if your wife and her husband (if married) would appreciate this undue fascination.





No, just like you, she creates a false argument and then goes on in an attempt to justify her charge.

She is arguing with herself.

Just as you are.

This is the same disruption you and your friends have been creating on this forum for some time. You derail the topic of the thread and turn it to what you really want to rail against.

Go start your own forum. You obviously have no respect for the other members or staff on this forum, so why not make your little club legitimate. I will even suggest a name: W.A.R. (We are Revilers). Maybe W.O.R.M. (We Offer Reformation Madness).



Okay, just a little humor, but the fact is...nobody cares about your vendetta against people you don't know, and your confusion about Theologies you think you understand. Your rejection of the distinction between Israel and the Church which is clearly presented in Scripture is ludicrous. Your hatred against people who understand that is atrocious. Your incessant disruption among those who sincerely want to understand these issues so they can make a reasoned decision and draw logical conclusions...is satanic.

Sounds harsh, but only Satan wants to keep people from fulfilling this:


Malachi 3:16

King James Version (KJV)

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.



God bless.

While I am sure BW318 is a godly woman.....I am also sure that blessed husband 31 is the only person whom God has ordained to explore such a relationship with her.
God has provided me a godly wife also and I do not look for anyone else but Mrs Clast.

I told you I will get to your unfortunate posts later on.....probably after 8 or so tonight.

BW has posted with a solid bible Christian ethic...as does Annsi, Scarlett O, and a few others like Amy G.....

Your cowardly attack where you are so full of yourself was quite shameful.
I will show that in detail as well as your bogus theology...scattered among some good verses...
Do not worry....maybe I will start a new thread about failed posts. ...why does it happen.