Scripture or Chafer

[Jim1999]

I am a theistic evolutionist! So what? I am not alone. A.H. Strong, a Baptist theologian was also a theistic evolutionist.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

It is a poor Christian who isn't convinced that what he believes is Biblical. Sadly some are in perfect agreement with the last person they hear or read. My beliefs are based on the study of Scripture and are consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. I have seen little humility from most dispensationalists, on this forum or elsewhere. Their general opinion of those who hold to the historic Baptist doctrine on eschatology and the church [which by the way is the current Southern Baptist doctrine of the Church] is that they are liberals and their doctrine unbiblical. One dispensationalist on this forum suggested among other things that I was a theistic evolutionist.

Most of this ad hominem, OR.

Dispensationalists would say that their beliefs are based on the study of Scripture. So now where are we? Both sides believe that, but that does not give either side the right to imply or state that the other side is not following the Bible (which has been said here by an anti-Disp. though not by you).

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
It is a poor Christian who isn't convinced that what he believes is Biblical. Sadly some are in perfect agreement with the last person they hear or read. My beliefs are based on the study of Scripture and are consistent with historic Baptist doctrine. I have seen little humility from most dispensationalists, on this forum or elsewhere. Their general opinion of those who hold to the historic Baptist doctrine on eschatology and the church [which by the way is the current Southern Baptist doctrine of the Church] is that they are liberals and their doctrine unbiblical. One dispensationalist on this forum suggested among other things that I was a theistic evolutionist.

Response by Marcia
Most of this ad hominem, OR.

Just what did I say that appealed to anyone's prejudices or attack anyones character other than question swaimj's call for humility.

 

[Jim1999]

It is difficult to discuss dispensationalism vs amillennialism without mentioning certain doctrines that don't appear to align with one or the other. Hence, it is hard to debate without trodding on some toes. This does happen on both sides of the fence. What we must try to remember is the fence of divide whilst holding faithfully with the truth of Christ in us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

Just what did I say that appealed to anyone's prejudices or attack anyones character other than question swaimj's call for humility.

You said this:
I have seen little humility from most dispensationalists, on this forum or elsewhere.

Is that not an ad hominem?

 

[HankD]

So which is correct, Scripture or Chafer? Or could it just possibly be that the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ, includes all redeemed of all time, including believing Israel of the Old Testament. That is what the Southern Baptist Faith and Message states.

This was answered in one of my posts OR.

You almost have it right (according to my particular kind of "dispensationalism").

The Bride of Christ is composed of both redeemed Israel (those redeemed while under the law of Moses ) represented by the 12 tribes and the Church represented by the 12 apostles.

So, I suppose I would disagree with most of the older generation of dispensationists if they say that the Bride of Christ in Revelation 21 speaks of the Church only.

This Scripture indicates that the Bride of Christ is composed of both these bodies of believers of the Old and New Covenants.

Which, I must admit, begs the question: of which of these bodies are the pre-law believers included (e.g. someone mentioned Job).

I suppose they could be included in "the Court of the Gentiles".

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

You said this:
I have seen little humility from most dispensationalists, on this forum or elsewhere.

Is that not an ad hominem?

No! Unfortunately it is my experience!

 

[Jim1999]

I side with OldRegular on this point. They even quote scriptures as if we haven't read those scriptures in our lifetime.

There are a lot of scriptures that go both ways, depending on one's hermeneutics.

I see no point in quoting scripture as if they haven't seen them before. I can't be that condescending.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[OldRegular]

This was answered in one of my posts OR.

You almost have it right (according to my particular kind of "dispensationalism").

The Bride of Christ is composed of both redeemed Israel (those redeemed while under the law of Moses ) represented by the 12 tribes and the Church represented by the 12 apostles.

So, I suppose I would disagree with most of the older generation of dispensationists if they say that the Bride of Christ in Revelation 21 speaks of the Church only.

This Scripture indicates that the Bride of Christ is composed of both these bodies of believers of the Old and New Covenants.

Which, I must admit, begs the question: of which of these bodies are the pre-law believers included (e.g. someone mentioned Job).

I suppose they could be included in "the Court of the Gentiles".

HankD

That question is raised by Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism, page 130 Given that most of the discussion of salvation addresses the time after God's call of Abraham it is a valid question. However, I believe that all people of all time who constitute the redeemed are saved the same way, by the Grace of God and are included in the same body, the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[swaimj]

However, I believe that all people of all time who constitute the redeemed are saved the same way, by the Grace of God...

No disagreement here, and Ryrie concurs with this

...and are included in the same body, the body of Jesus Christ.

Could you give scripture supporting this?

 

[OldRegular]

Could you give scripture supporting this?

Can you give Scripture refuting it? However, I suggest you read Ephesians 2.

 

[swaimj]

Old Regular,

You say on this thread that you have come to your understanding through your study of scripture, but when asked to demonstrate your understanding of scripture you take a pass. I have read Ephesians 2 many times. I am not aware that is supports your statement. Please demonstrate that it does. This is a very simple request.

 

[Pastor Larry]

are included in the same body, the body of Jesus Christ.

When were these OT saints Spirit-baptized?

 

[thomas15]

When were these OT saints Spirit-baptized?

And when were the NT gentile Saints circumcised?

 

[Pastor Larry]

And when were the NT gentile Saints circumcised?

Some are; some aren't, but most within a few days of birth or so. But none of them need to be. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham. It was not for the church.

So back to the question, When were these OT saints Spirit-baptized?

 

[swaimj]

Here was OldRegular's response to me on the previous page:

It is a poor Christian who isn't convinced that what he believes is Biblical. Sadly some are in perfect agreement with the last person they hear or read.

OR, the last person I had heard or read prior to my post was you. Since I don't agree with you, I don't see how this statement applies to me.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[OldRegular]

Here was OldRegular's response to me on the previous page:OR, the last person I had heard or read prior to my post was you. Since I don't agree with you, I don't see how this statement applies to me.:smilewinkgrin:

Perhaps you can't read. In the post you responded to and quoted I said: Sadly some are in perfect agreement with the last person they hear or read.

Some not all.

 

[swaimj]

I can read, Old Regular. The problem is that, when it comes to answering a simple, fair question, you cannot write!

 

[OldRegular]

Old Regular,

You say on this thread that you have come to your understanding through your study of scripture, but when asked to demonstrate your understanding of scripture you take a pass. I have read Ephesians 2 many times. I am not aware that is supports your statement. Please demonstrate that it does. This is a very simple request.

I have been posting my understanding of Scripture for months. If you don't believe Ephesians 2 you certainly should not believe me.

 

[swaimj]

Old Regular,
Unfortunately, I have not read everything you have posted on this board since you joined, nor do I intend to. However, I am participating on this thread. Answering the question I have asked would have taken less effort for you than your evasions have taken. Would you do the courtesy of answering my question?

You said "all people of all time who make up the redeemed are in the body of Christ". And you said that Ephesians 2 supports this. What statement in Ephesians 2 supports your view? Please answer this question.