Questions for Dispensationalists

[Allan]

Here is the problem with taking poetic language literally. You use Is. 11 as a proof text. Notice:

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Notice the Lion? You also quote from Is. 35. Notice what is found in your proof text:

Isa 35:9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

No Lion! So which is it? Is there a Lion or is there not? How do you take these verse literally and deal with your "lion" problem?

Proof-text :laugh: LOL
A proof-text is the taking of a verse(s) out of their context.
You accuse me of doing this (though I in fact did not) but this is EXACTLY what YOU just did in an attempt to dispove what I said! - LOL.

Isa 35:9 is NOT about there being no lions there at all but is a specific refence about the return of God's people and the 'way' or road which they take to Zion or Jerusalem. It is speaking about the no 'dangers' being there such as the lion or other beasts to cause them to fear on the road like there used to be. It was NOT that there will be no lions. Please please please, keep context in mind and keep it literal unless the texts gives you reason to do otherwise brother. Let the text say what it literally means and when a metophor or allegory is used then interpret that literally as such.

Secondly when you quoted from !s.11, you stopped at verse 9. Continue on to verse 10:

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Wesley's comments:

Isa 11:10 A root - A branch growing upon the root. Ensign - Shall grow up into a great tree, shall become an eminent ensign. The people - Which not only the Jews, but all nations, may discern, and to which they shall resort. Rest - His resting - place, his temple or church, the place of his presence and abode. Glorious - Shall be filled with greater glory than the Jewish tabernacle and temple were; only this glory shall be spiritual, consisting in the plentiful effusions of the gifts, and graces, of the Holy Spirit.

Paul uses this passage to speak of the Church:

Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Isaiah is speaking of Christ the King and is the same thing that Paul speaks of.

Paul did NOT use 'the branch' to speak of the Church because the church does not rule over the Gentiles nor do or are the gentiles supposed to 'trust' in the Church but Christ and Christ alone. He rules and it is in Him we place our trust. Notice the word 'He' ..that shall rise (stand forth) to reign over.. This is speaking of a person, The person of Christ. Notice also the Gentiles are to the trust in the root of Jesse. This can not be the Church for the gentile (or anyone for that matter) are not to place their trust in the Church but Christ alone.

The 'root of Jesse' always refers to Christ Jesus. And sorry but Mr. Wesley along with other Preterist are wrong about this not because 'I' said so but because the text will not allow for such nonsense. Notice if you will that 'the root' is that from which Jesse (plant) did spring and does not mean that which sprang from Jesse. The root is and always shall be Christ the Lord - NOT the Church.

 

[Grasshopper]

Proof-text LOL
A proof-text is the taking of a verse(s) out of their context.
You accuse me of doing this (though I in fact did not) but this is EXACTLY what YOU just did in an attempt to dispove what I said! - LOL.

How did I take it out of context when I didn't give my interpretation of the passage. I was givng a literal interpretation of the passage that dispies say we must do, at least up until now but:

Isa 35:9 is NOT about there being no lions there at all but is a specific refence about the return of God's people and the 'way' or road which they take to Zion or Jerusalem. It is speaking about the no 'dangers' being there such as the lion or other beasts to cause them to fear on the road like there used to be. It was NOT that there will be no lions. Please please please, keep context in mind and keep it literal unless the texts gives you reason to do otherwise brother. Let the text say what it literally means and when a metophor or allegory is used then interpret that literally as such.

Of course its not about literal lions,this is the very point I and others are trying to make about passages like this! Thank you, you've made our point! Perhaps now you can take this new found interpretive method and apply it to other such passages. Perhaps Is. 13:10 would be a good starting place.

You probably don't see it and would never admit it but you just put a huge crack in the foundation of dispensationalist interpretive methods. A foundation built on the literal interpretation and fulfillment of OT passages.

However you seem to allow for a metaphoric method only when there is an obvious contradiction. You seem to pick right back up with your wooden literalism in this comment:

"Also many aspects of the curse (Gen. 3:15-19) will be reversed. People will live to a great age, but death will still occur.5 As before the flood, animals will revert to vegetarianism and will no longer fear man. Living waters will flow from beneath the sanctuary of the Millennial Temple bringing life to the regions they water."

Why is the living water the OT Prophets spoke of different than the Living waters Jesus spoke of?

Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Isaiah is speaking of Christ the King and is the same thing that Paul speaks of.

Paul did NOT use 'the branch' to speak of the Church because the church does not rule over the Gentiles nor do or are the gentiles supposed to 'trust' in the Church but Christ and Christ alone. He rules and it is in Him we place our trust. Notice the word 'He' ..that shall rise (stand forth) to reign over.. This is speaking of a person, The person of Christ. Notice also the Gentiles are to the trust in the root of Jesse. This can not be the Church for the gentile (or anyone for that matter) are not to place their trust in the Church but Christ alone.

The 'root of Jesse' always refers to Christ Jesus.

You misunderstood, but that was my fault. I did not mean that it referred to the Church, but was getting to when it was fulfilled. Verse 10 is a past fulfillment and the "in that day" refers back to the previous verses you used. Do you think verse 10 is still a future fulfillment?

And sorry but Mr. Wesley along with other Preterist are wrong about this not because 'I' said so but because the text will not allow for such nonsense.

John Wesley a preterist?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm sure it was just an oversight, but you didn't answer the question. Is the New H&E of Is. 65:17 which you used earlier a different New H&E of 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 21?

 

[Allan]

How did I take it out of context when I didn't give my interpretation of the passage. I was givng a literal interpretation of the passage that dispies say we must do, at least up until now but:

You did give your interpretation - that the verse I was using was not to be taken literally. You did not expound completely but you did give you view of it - thus an interpretation.

Of course its not about literal lions,this is the very point I and others are trying to make about passages like this!

Then you did not read with the intent to understand.
I did not state there were no 'literal lions' there in that time, I said there would be no loins of dangerous beasts on the road to Jerusalem as there was typically at that time to watch out for. Please read it again.

Isa 35:9 is NOT about there being no lions there at all but is a specific refence about the return of God's people and the 'way' or road which they take to Zion or Jerusalem. It is speaking about the no 'dangers' being there such as the lion or other beasts to cause them to fear on the road like there used to be. It was NOT that there will be no lions. Please please please, keep context in mind and keep it literal unless the texts gives you reason to do otherwise brother. Let the text say what it literally means and when a metophor or allegory is used then interpret that literally as such.

See There will still be lions.

Thank you, you've made our point! Perhaps now you can take this new found interpretive method and apply it to other such passages. Perhaps Is. 13:10 would be a good starting place.

You probably don't see it and would never admit it but you just put a huge crack in the foundation of dispensationalist interpretive methods. A foundation built on the literal interpretation and fulfillment of OT passages.

You built your own straw-man out of something I never stated. However You were just proved wrong in what you understood about it not being literal. Yes, there will still be lions in the MK. Please take time to review before you exault yourself.

However you seem to allow for a metaphoric method only when there is an obvious contradiction. You seem to pick right back up with your wooden literalism in this comment:

No, I allow for metaphors when the text - in context - validates there to be one.

"Also many aspects of the curse (Gen. 3:15-19) will be reversed. People will live to a great age, but death will still occur.5 As before the flood, animals will revert to vegetarianism and will no longer fear man. Living waters will flow from beneath the sanctuary of the Millennial Temple bringing life to the regions they water."

Why is the living water the OT Prophets spoke of different than the Living waters Jesus spoke of?

Joh 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

It doesn't slow down in zeal to squash something you don't like and actaully look at it.

The Living waters that flow from the throne is a reference to the one who sits upon the throne. The throne (though literal) is also a symbol of authority regarding the one who occupies that place. Thus it is to be seen as both literal and spiritual. For from the throne flows all life giving substance both to the world and it's people. Will water actually flow directly 'from' the throne - I don't know but would say it is an impossiblity to do so for God who made water flow from a rock? I say that it could but it can also mean that the literal water that gives life to vegitation and people will have it's sourse coming from Jerusalem where His throne will be..

You misunderstood, but that was my fault. I did not mean that it referred to the Church, but was getting to when it was fulfilled. Verse 10 is a past fulfillment and the "in that day" refers back to the previous verses you used. Do you think verse 10 is still a future fulfillment?

Yes it is still futer because Jesus is not the agreed upon King over National Israel. In that day - does not refer to the past but actaully - when this happens..

Also no, the preceding verse have not happened yet. Christ has not judged anything yet - He came not to judge but save. It is his second coming in which He will return to give judgement, and that is just for starters on those verses.

John Wesley a preterist?:laugh:

Yeah - my goof. I meant Wesley [and others] and even preterists. - Simply meaning that any man can be wrong - even me and even you but that I specifically believe he is wrong in this - just as he was wrong about being able to loose ones salvation and being able to go for periods of time (day or weeks even) without ever commiting one sin.

'm sure it was just an oversight, but you didn't answer the question. Is the New H&E of Is. 65:17 which you used earlier a different New H&E of 2 Peter 3 or Revelation 21?

Sorry - I did.
They are not MK. They are what transpires after the Great White Throne Judgment at the at end of the MK. Though the earth will become like new and so also the heavens (sky and beyond) they will not be the 'New H&E' which will come forth after the cleansing of fire. And it is here that 'righteousness' (no sin or stain) dwells.

If you will notice in Isaiah 65 the verses preceding verse 17 speak of the MK and 17 speaks of the 're-creating' of the New H&E and Revelation 20 is after that same manner.

2 Peter 3 speaks of 'the day of the Lord' being the entirty of God's plan (beginning to end ) coming to pass. Notice the passage here - for one day with the Lord is as a thousand years illstrates that time is not a factor to necessarly be measured, in the events he is speaking of, of their unfolding. From the snatching away to the destuction of things touched by sin and recreating of Heavens and the Earth.

 

[Grasshopper]

Then you did not read with the intent to understand.
I did not state there were no 'literal lions' there in that time, I said there would be no loins of dangerous beasts on the road to Jerusalem as there was typically at that time to watch out for. Please read it again.

OK, I got it. I'm confused why you indicated there were metaphors present. You still seem to have literal lions, a literal road, to a literal Jerusalem. You said:

Let the text say what it literally means and when a metophor or allegory is used then interpret that literally as such.

I think John Gill interprets the metaphors correctly:

Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed,.... That is, together, in one church state, at one table, or in one pasture, upon the wholesome food of the Gospel, the salutary doctrines of Christ; who though before of different dispositions, the one tame and gentle, useful and profitable, dispensing the milk of the divine word, and gracious experience; the other cruel and voracious, barbarous and inhuman, worrying the lambs and sheep of Christ; but now of the same nature, and having no ill will to one another, and being without fear of each other:
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; kings shall be nursing fathers to the church, and feed on the same Gospel provisions; and there shall be a great agreement between them who were before comparable to lions for their strength, power, and cruelty, and ministers of the Gospel, who are compared to oxen, for their strength and laboriousness, 1Co_9:9 "straw" here denotes true doctrine, though elsewhere false, see 1Co_3:12.

Isa 35:9 No lion shall be there,.... That is, in the way before described; no wicked persons, comparable to lions for their savage and cruel dispositions towards the people of God; for those who have been as such, as Saul before conversion, yet when brought into this way become as tame as lambs. .............there will be no persecutor of the church and people of God:

Read all of Gill's commentary on Is. 35.

Why wouldn't there be lions there since the lions are no longer a threat?

Here is what you said:

Also many aspects of the curse (Gen. 3:15-19) will be reversed. People will live to a great age, but death will still occur.5 As before the flood, animals will revert to vegetarianism and will no longer fear man.

Since the lions are now vegetarians and are not a threat to man or ox, why would there be no lions on the road to Zion?

A Zion by the way which the writer of Hebrews says his audience had come:
Heb 12:22 But, ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers,

Gill, a non-preterist, comments on this passage:

but, by "Mount Sion", and the other names here given, is meant the church of God, under the Gospel dispensation, to which the believing Hebrews were come; in distinction from the legal dispensation, signified by Mount Sinai,


Why look for a future fulfillment when the NT writers clearly find fulfillment in their day.

Will water actually flow directly 'from' the throne - I don't know

You seemed quite sure earlier with this statement:

Living waters will flow from beneath the sanctuary of the Millennial Temple bringing life to the regions they water.

It's extremely hard to pin down dispies on many of these passages.

Yes it is still futer because Jesus is not the agreed upon King over National Israel.

So Is. 11:10 is still future?

Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

Wow, I couldn't find one commentator who holds your view, Again, I quote Gill:

which shall stand for an ensign of the people; in the ministration of the Gospel, for the gathering of the people of God to him, to enlist in his service, and fight under his banner, where they may be sure of victory; an ensign set up, a banner displayed, is for the gathering of soldiers together; it is a sign of preparation for war, and an encouragement to it; and is sometimes done when victory is obtained, see Isa_5:26 and is a direction where soldiers should stand, when they should march, and who they should follow, as well as it serves to distinguish one company from another; and of all this use is the preaching of Christ and his Gospel:

Again Paul quotes this exact verse speaking of the Gospel:
Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:...
Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

Why is Paul quoting this passage to Roman Christians living in the Church age?

They are not MK. They are what transpires after the Great White Throne Judgment at the at end of the MK. Though the earth will become like new and so also the heavens (sky and beyond) they will not be the 'New H&E' which will come forth after the cleansing of fire. And it is here that 'righteousness' (no sin or stain) dwells.

Correct me if I'm wrong but here is what I think you are saying. The New H&E of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21 are not describing the MK but are the same as Is. 65 17. So Is. 65:17, 2 Peter 3 and Rev 21 all speak of the same New H&E correct?

If you will notice in Isaiah 65 the verses preceding verse 17 speak of the MK and 17 speaks of the 're-creating' of the New H&E and Revelation 20 is after that same manner.

Well now I'm confused again, is Is. 65:17 speaking of the MK and a parallel of Rev. 20 but not Rev 21:1?

 

[OldRegular]

Here are some questions:

1. Was the Church spoken of by the OT prophets?

Given that dispensationalists insist that the Church is not included in prophecy it is worthwhile to note that the Scofield Bible of 1917 includes the introduction to the Song of Solomon by Scofield, as follows :

“Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, while the saintliest men and women of the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. That the love of the divine Bridegroom should follow all the analogies of the marriage relation seems evil only to minds so ascetic that martial desire itself seems to them unholy.
The interpretation is twofold: Primarily, the book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained of God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust--the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. The secondary and larger interpretation is of Christ, the Son and His heavenly bride, the Church (2*Corinthians 11:1-4 refs).”

This introduction has since been removed from later editions of the Scofield Bible. It does contradict the dispensational teaching that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. But then dispensationalism is a contradiction, an enigma wrapped in a riddle!

 

[Ed Edwards]

I found today on Google 231 samples of this:

Church "not prophesied" site:baptistboard.com

I only checked a few but in at least 19 that also contain 'OldRegular', it seems that anti-dispies like to say that dispies say "the church is not prophesied" but dispies don't say it???

In other words, it appears to me that anti-dispies create strawmen which they can destroy instead of actually answering the points of dispies. Makes for a dull conversation. Any anti-dispie aught to be able to demolish Strawmen. But it does no good to be able to discombobulate Strawmen -- the evil one is NOT a pushover strawman.

--------------------

Argue against this:

Here is what I know about Economics:
God's Economics

Here are the four uses of 'dispensation' in the New
Testament:

1Co 9:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For if I doe this thing willingly,
I haue a reward: but if against my will,
a dispensation of the Gospel is committed vnto me.

Eph 1:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
That in the dispensation of the fulnesse of times,
he might gather together in one all things in Christ,
both which are in heauen, and which are on earth,
euen in him:

Eph 3:2 (KJV1611 Edition):
If ye haue heard of the dispensation
of the grace of God, which is giuen me to youward:

Col 1:25 (KJV1611 Edition):
Whereof I am made a Minister, according
to the dispensation of God, which is giuen
to mee for you, to fulfill the word of God:

We get our English word 'economy from the
Greek 'oikonomia' (translated as 'dispensation'
in the KJVs.

In God's Economy of time:

hour = the appropriate time
day = the appropriate time
week = the appropriate time
month = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time
7-years = the appropriate time
1,000 years = the appropriate time

1 hour = 1,000 years
1 day = 7 years

In God's Economy of People restoration:

The blind see,
The deaf hear
The dead live
The lame leap like deer
The first are last
The last are first

 

[Ed Edwards]

The Greek word 'katabole' is translated foundation
and with 'cosmos' is translated 'foundation of the world'.

In the New Testament there are 10 occurances of
'foundation of the world'. There are two conditions:

pro (before)
apo (since or from)

Seven start with 'apo'
Three start with 'pro'

The differences are doctrinally significant:
the three starting with 'pro' has to do with
God's love of Christ, God's selection of Christ,
and Christ's selection of we Christ-ones.

1 Pe 1:20 (KJV1611): before = pro
who verily was foreordeined before the foundation
of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

G2602
καταβολή
katabolē
kat-ab-ol-ay'
From G2598; a deposition, that is, founding;
figuratively conception: - conceive, foundation.


Rev 17:8 (KJV1769):
The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomlesse pit, and goe into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the booke of life from the foundation of the world) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Foundation of the World in KJV1769:

Mt 13:35 (KJV1769): from = apo
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 25:34 (KJV1769): from = apo
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Luke 11:50 (KJV1769): from = apo
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

John 17:24 (KJV1769): before = pro
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4 (KJV1769): before = pro
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV1769): from = apo
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:26 (KJV1769): since = apo
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV1769): from = apo
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

In general:

apo (since, from) the foundation refers to Yisrael
pro (before) the foundation refers to the largely Gentile Church
of the Church Age (also: Times of the Gentiles, Age of
the Gentiles, Age of Grace, etc).

 

[Ed Edwards]

The Greek word 'katabole' is translated foundation
and with 'cosmos' is translated 'foundation of the world'.

In the New Testament there are 10 occurances of
'foundation of the world'. There are two conditions:

pro (before)
apo (since or from)

Seven start with 'apo'
Three start with 'pro'

The differences are doctrinally significant:
the three starting with 'pro' has to do with
God's love of Christ, God's selection of Christ,
and Christ's selection of we Christ-ones.

1 Pe 1:20 (KJV1611): before = pro
who verily was foreordeined before the foundation
of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

G2602
καταβολή
katabolē
kat-ab-ol-ay'
From G2598; a deposition, that is, founding;
figuratively conception: - conceive, foundation.


Rev 17:8 (KJV1769):
The beast that thou sawest, was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomlesse pit, and goe into perdition, and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the booke of life from the foundation of the world) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Foundation of the World in KJV1769:

Mt 13:35 (KJV1769): from = apo
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 25:34 (KJV1769): from = apo
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Luke 11:50 (KJV1769): from = apo
That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

John 17:24 (KJV1769): before = pro
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4 (KJV1769): before = pro
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV1769): from = apo
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:26 (KJV1769): since = apo
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV1769): from = apo
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

In general:

apo (since, from) the foundation refers to Yisrael
pro (before) the foundation refers to the largely Gentile Church
of the Church Age (also: Times of the Gentiles, Age of
the Gentiles, Age of Grace, etc).

 

[OldRegular]

I found today on Google 231 samples of this:

Church "not prophesied" site:baptistboard.com

I only checked a few but in at least 19 that also contain 'OldRegular', it seems that anti-dispies like to say that dispies say "the church is not prophesied" but dispies don't say it???

"Dispies" do say that the Church is not included in Old Testament prophecy, at least John Walvoord does. In "Major Bible Prophesies", page 207 Walvoord writes:

"In the New Testament a mystery is a truth that was hidden in the Old Testament but revealed in the New. Generally speaking, it is not a truth that is difficult to understand but refers to New Testament revelation in contrast to the limitations of the Old Testament. In Colossians 1:26 a typical definition of the mystery is found, "the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints." A major aspect of this is the present purpose of God to call out from among the Jews and Gentiles the church as the body of Christ and as God's present means of testimony to the world."

 

[Ed Edwards]

I have not seen John F. Walvoord post here. I have a copy of Major Bible Prophecies, subtitle: 37 Crucial Prophecies That Affect You Today (Harper Paperbacks, 1991). It does not have your quote on page 207.

While the quote of Walvoord you do give is correct about what a New Testament 'mystery' is, the quote does not preclude clues in the OT that can are understood in new light of the New Testament to mean 'the Church age'.

Before I found out that 1964 was a transition point - after that day mankind could destroy all human life on the face of the planet without help from God. I know when I was a kid & got saved at a pre-trib pre-mill revival, I thought that it was good that God was going to get all those bad guys and give them hell on earth. But about 1972 figured out the think that had happend in 1964 and realized that the Lord would step into the World order and SAVE HUMANITY FROM ITSELF. Mankind can do all the wierd things done in the book of Revelation for the end of time EXCEPT the pretribulation rapture2 = ressurection1/rapture1.

No, you won't get the last paragraph out of the New Testament, but that fact does make both the OT and NT more readable.

 

[OldRegular]

I have not seen John F. Walvoord post here. I have a copy of Major Bible Prophecies, subtitle: 37 Crucial Prophecies That Affect You Today (Harper Paperbacks, 1991). It does not have your quote on page 207.

While the quote of Walvoord you do give is correct about what a New Testament 'mystery' is, the quote does not preclude clues in the OT that can are understood in new light of the New Testament to mean 'the Church age'.

Before I found out that 1964 was a transition point - after that day mankind could destroy all human life on the face of the planet without help from God. I know when I was a kid & got saved at a pre-trib pre-mill revival, I thought that it was good that God was going to get all those bad guys and give them hell on earth. But about 1972 figured out the think that had happend in 1964 and realized that the Lord would step into the World order and SAVE HUMANITY FROM ITSELF. Mankind can do all the wierd things done in the book of Revelation for the end of time EXCEPT the pretribulation rapture2 = ressurection1/rapture1.

No, you won't get the last paragraph out of the New Testament, but that fact does make both the OT and NT more readable.

I thought that 1964 was a year, not a day but then dispensationalists do have trouble with words like "hour" so it is understandable they would have trouble with other time frames. I am unable to understand what 1964 or 1972 have to do with dispensational error. Perhaps you can elaborate. Also stay away from cheap paperbacks, they will lead you astray.

 

[skypair]

I thought that 1964 was a year, not a day but then dispensationalists do have trouble with words like "hour" so it is understandable they would have trouble with other time frames. I am unable to understand what 1964 or 1972 have to do with dispensational error. Perhaps you can elaborate. Also stay away from cheap paperbacks, they will lead you astray.

And so the "student" (OldRegular) presumes to instruct the "teacher" (EdEdwards). :laugh:

Do you not get it yet? The church was revealed to the OT in "mystery" -- they couldn't see it; we CAN!

It's just like you and the NT KoH parables -- we see but you can't because of your prejudicial POV.

skypair

 

[OldRegular]

And so the "student" (OldRegular) presumes to instruct the "teacher" (EdEdwards). :laugh:

Do you not get it yet? The church was revealed to the OT in "mystery" -- they couldn't see it; we CAN!

It's just like you and the NT KoH parables -- we see but you can't because of your prejudicial POV.

skypair

Skypair

Conduct a poll on this forum and see how many people understand Ed's posts.

 

[skypair]

Conduct a poll on this forum and see how many people understand Ed's posts.

Ed means well but, you're right -- wading through his explanations is laborious! I told him that once but... :tonofbricks:

skypair

 

[Grasshopper]

Do you not get it yet? The church was revealed to the OT in "mystery" -- they couldn't see it; we CAN!
skypair

Now go back in the OT and find those passages. Then find out to whom those promises were made.

 

[skypair]

Now go back in the OT and find those passages. Then find out to whom those promises were made.

Let's start with Isa 57:1-3, shall we? You go first. :laugh:

skypair

 

[doulous]

God's will of decree is from eternity past. IOW, before time began (as we measure it), God predestined all things; both first and second causes. Those things predestined by God become manifest when they finally take place. For example, God predestined Israel's exodus from Egypt. While foreordained in the mind of God, it was not manifested until Pharaoh acquiesced to Moses' demand to, "let my people go."

 

[webdog]

IOW, before time began (as we measure it), God predestined all things; both first and second causes.

"Before time began" makes no sense since before is a time statment.

 

[doulous]

"Before time began" makes no sense since before is a time statment.

time as we know it was created by God to govern his creation. God exists outside of time and space. Since God is eternal all His decrees are eternal.

 

[Rippon]

time as we know it was created by God to govern his creation. God exists outside of time and space. Since God is eternal all His decrees are eternal.

AMEN to that.

Hey Bill, welcome back after 28 months.Don't be such a stranger.