Southern Baptists and Dispensationalism

[OldRegular]

Dialog between Pastor Larry and OldRegular about the errors of dispensationalism.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
That is simply not true. Jesus Christ did not offer a carnal kingdom but a Spiritual Kingdom which many Jews accepted, the nucleus of the New Testament Church.

Response Posted by Larry
Carnal? If by that you mean earthly, then again, I say read the OT. It is clear that the kingdom is an earthly kingdom, complete with cities and land boundaries, animals, trees, crops, and the like.

The carnal mind will interpret Scripture accordingly.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Wrong again. The people, or nation as KJV states, is the Church.

Response Posted by Larry
The KJV doesn't say that. The kingdom was promised to Israel, and unless God is a liar, it will be given to Israel.

You seem to like that phrase: unless God is a liar. Was Jesus Christ lying when he stated the kingdom will be taken from Israel.

The Kingdom Israel mistakenly thought was exclusively for them was taken away and given to another people:

Matthew 21:43, KJV
43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

What nation was to be the recipient of the Kingdom of God? The obvious answer is the Church. However, for certainty we turn to Scripture. We read in the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 12:32, KJV
32. Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The ‘little flock’ is the Church, the ‘called out’ ones, who would bring forth the fruits of the Kingdom. For those who would insist that the Church cannot be identified as a ‘nation’ we turn to the writings of the Apostle Peter in which he uses the language of Exodus 18:5,6 to describe the Church:

1 Peter 2:9, KJV
9. But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

There is no Scripture in the New Testament that indicates that the judgment pronounced against Israel in Matthew 21:43 was or ever will be revoked. Therefore, it still stands. The Kingdom belongs to the little flock, the Church. The mission of the nation Israel in God’s purpose of redemption had been accomplished.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
You won't believe the Scripture that is presented.

Response Posted by Larry
Yes, I will.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Why can you not show one passage of Scripture where Jesus Christ definitively offers an earthly Messianic Kingdom to the Jews. You can't, period, because it does not exist.

Response Posted by Larry
It is all over the bible.

Quote just one.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
I haven't seen any real evidence posted. Admit it.

Response Posted by Larry
Go back and read. I pointed out several passage where "hour" obviously does not mean "at one particular instant." I pointed out clearly that the first resurrection takes place in stages, and precedes the second.

I don't know where! Anyhow the first resurrection was that of Jesus Christ as I noted. It certainly did not take place in stages.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
John 5:28,29 interpreted literally or at "face value" as Ryrie insists destroys the dispensational insistence on the rapture, the earthly millennium, and all dispensational error.

Response Posted by Larry
No it doesn't. That's nonsense.

You are perfectly entitled to be to be wrong consistent with dispensational theology.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
One of the worst implications of dispensationalism is that it states that the Church was left ignorant for 1800 years.

Response Posted by Larry
I don't think so at all. There were people who held to the dispensational premises all through church history.

That is sheer nonsense. Charles C. Ryrie in Chapter 4 of Dispensationalism argues that the beginning of dispensational thought is much earlier [than Darby]. He asserts that Pierre Poiret, a French philosopher and mystic, published a rudimentary system of dispensations in 1687 and that Isaac Watts [1674-1748] developed an outline of dispensations that essentially paralleled that in the Scofield Bible, with the exception of the millennium. There is no indication, however, that either of these men believed that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Israel and the Church which according to Ryrie [page 39] is the basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist. The question is not whether there is a distinction between the nation Israel and the Church, there obviously is. The concern is the relationship between true or spiritual Israel, the believing remnant [Isaiah 10:20-23], and the Church.

So you see, even were Ryrie correct dispensational error [dispensational premises is more correct than dispensational doctrine] does not occur throughout Church history.

Originally Posted by OldRegular
One of the worst claims that dispensationalism makes is that the Church is guilty of robbing Israel of its promises. Very Sad!

Response Posted by Larry
It is sad, but God promised Israel that he would restore them to the land, either he will or he lied. Which do you think?

There you go again. Don't you know God cannot lie.

Hebrews 6:18. That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Why don't you address the point made in the OP about the Church as defined by the Southern Baptist Convention? That refutes dispensationalism and you cannot deny it.

Response Posted by Larry
I am not a Southern Baptist, and I thought the OP was pretty silly. Truth is you can "prove" or "disprove" anything by selective quotes from people who were wrong.

Silly or not on this forum you are supposed to address the OP.

 

[gb93433]

I was told by some of the professors when I was a student at SWBTS that it was not until recent years that a dispensationalist would even be considered for a faculty position. At SWBTS a dispensational professor is a regular occurence. The president of SWBTS is a dispensationalist.

 

[OldRegular]

Israel seems to play a pretty big role in Revelation. Is that the legitimate Israel, or an illegitimate one?

Actually the above statement is misleading.

The word Israel appears three times in the Book of Revelation, Chapters 2, 7, and 21; the word Jews appears only twice, Chapters 2 and 3, and there the reference is to false Jews. So we see that a reference to Israel appears only once during that part of the Book that is presumed to represent ‘the seven year tribulation’ and ‘Jacob’s time of trouble’. The first time the word Israel is used [2:14] the reference is to the false prophet Balaam and his role in the seduction of Israel enroute to the promise land. In Chapter 7 the name Israel is used in the discussion of the servants of God who are sealed. The next occasion [21:12] the name is used in the description of the New Jerusalem, the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ. Again, Israel is referred to only one time, and no reference is made to the Jews, during that period in which it is claimed that the Church is absent. Strange indeed is the absence of the words Jew or Israel in the 16 chapters of Revelation written specifically for them, according to dispensational theology, while, in the remainder of the New Testament the words Jew or Jews occur 188 times and the words Israel or Israelite occur 73 times.

To show that the absence or presence of a word is not decisive consider the Book of Esther in the Old Testament. The editor of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible notes:The name of God does not appear in the book, while a heathen king is referred to over 150 times. There is no allusion to prayer or spiritual service of any kind with the possible exception of fasting. Does this absence of reference to God mean that He was absent or that the book of Esther should not be in the Canon? Obviously not. The book of Esther was written to show God’s providential watch care over His Covenant people through whom He would bring the Saviour into the world.

It is interesting to note that there are other books in the New Testament where the words church or churches are not used. The words do not appear in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John. If one believes that the Church was not established until Pentecost, that is not necessarily unusual. It is interesting, however, that the book that many dispensationalists claim is the Gospel of the Kingdom [written by a Jewish believer who collected taxes for Rome] is the Gospel in which the Church is first proclaimed. The words church or churches are not mentioned in 1st & 2nd Peter, 1st & 2nd John, and Jude. Can we then argue the absence of the Church? The words are also absent from the first 15 chapters of Romans and occur only twice in Hebrews.

In conclusion, there are books in the New Testament in which the words church or churches are not mentioned. Therefore, the absence of the word church in Chapters 4-19 of the book of Revelation is scant justification to claim that the Church is absent during the period covered by these chapters. However, I believe the best argument against a pretribulation “Rapture” is contained in the proper interpretation of John 5:28,29 [Section 6.1].

Alan Johnson writing in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Volume 12, page 461 explains the absence of the word ‘church’ as follows: “the word church or churches always stands in Revelation for the historic seven churches in Asia and not for the universal body of Christ. Since 4:2-22:15 concerns the believing community as a whole, it would be inappropriate at least for John’s usage to find the narrower term ‘church’ in this section.

 

[OldRegular]

I have a copy of the Baptist Faith and Message (1963?) and there is no mention of the rapture or millenium in it.

This is what is says regarding "last things".

That part of the Baptist Faith and Message is a good description of a general resurrection and judgment.

 

[OldRegular]

There has always been a latitude among Baptists about eschatology. That's why these guys coming along and attacking dispensationalism is disturbing. Jim says he doesn't think eschatology should be a test of fellowship. Apparently he has higher standards for mocking though.

I wouldn't break fellowship over it, though it would have some implications for fellowship in some areas.

They may not make it a test of fellowship [though I believe some secretly do] but they are quick to tag you with the name "liberal".

 

[Allan]

Because of the influence of the Scofield Reference Bible, many Southern Baptists have embraced the dispensational error in the interpretation of Scripture. That error, unfortunately, includes:
1] A misunderstanding of the mission of Jesus Christ and the nature or doctrine of the Church [ecclesiology].
2] A false eschatology with emphasis on the removal of the Church followed by a seven year period of tribulation prior to the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of a fictional earthly kingdom for the Jews.

Your refusal of any truth in the matter is astounding. It is isn't ignorance as much falicious misdirection/misinformation. Dispensationalism or the pre-mil view has nothing to do with the Darby bible - get it through your head. It has to do with church history and scripture! What is actaully a NEW view compared to that of the historical view is Amil which was not even a view considered biblical until centuries later when allegorical interpretation was seen as a good idea.

We see that the definition of the Church as presented in the Baptist Faith and Message is directly contrary to the dispensational doctrine of the Church [also discussed in another thread]. Furthermore, the remarks by Walvoord show that the dispensational doctrine of a pretribulation rapture of the Church contradicts current Southern Baptist theology as well as historic Baptist Theology.

Wrong. You are taking what is stated out of it's context.

VI. The Church

A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

The later, which you quoted, is not speaking in the manner you are twisting it but is refering to "all the redeemed" (which is defined in the Salvation section) as those who are partakers with Christ after His resurrection which incorporates us int the Church/His body. Not ALL believers at all times but specifically the 'redeemed' as set forth regarding those who make up the church body described just prior to.

Take things in context and read them as they are (literally) and use metaphoric or allegorical methods when the texts (no matter what it is) determines such.


So regarding the OP - your answer is plain. SBC'ers have no conflict with their definition of the church and dispensationalism.

 

[OldRegular]

Allan

Dispensationalists like to confuse people about the premillennialism of the first centuries and dispensationalism. There is a vast difference. Historic premillennialism believes that the Church is dominant in the Millennium. Dispensationalism teaches that the Jews will be dominant. Even so both are incorrect interpretations of Scripture. Now back to the OP and the Southern Baptist definition of the Church which is directly opposed to the dispensational concept of the Church.

 

[OldRegular]

Your refusal of any truth in the matter is astounding. It is isn't ignorance as much falicious misdirection/misinformation. Dispensationalism or the pre-mil view has nothing to do with the Darby bible - get it through your head. It has to do with church history and scripture! What is actaully a NEW view compared to that of the historical view is Amil which was not even a view considered biblical until centuries later when allegorical interpretation was seen as a good idea.

You are accusing me of lying which is contrary to the rules of this forum. However, I have noticed on this forum and in life that dispensationalists are quick to question the integrity of those who insist that dispensationalism is contrary to Scripture and Church History. Furthermore, since this forum is run by dispensationalists it appears that they are not subject to its rules. You can believe it or not but it is a historical fact that dispensationalism is the brainchild of Darby and it was foisted on a gullible Church membership by the Scofield Bible. The historical or covenant premillennialism of the first centuries bears absolutely no relationship to diapensationalism. That is a fact and if you will make the effort you can discover this truth for yourself.

Allegorical interpretation has nothing to do with the amillennial interpretation of Scripture: truth does!

Wrong. You are taking what is stated out of it's context.

The later, which you quoted, is not speaking in the manner you are twisting it but is refering to "all the redeemed" (which is defined in the Salvation section) as those who are partakers with Christ after His resurrection which incorporates us int the Church/His body. Not ALL believers at all times but specifically the 'redeemed' as set forth regarding those who make up the church body described just prior to.

You obviously cannot read. The Baptist Faith and Message states clearly: The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

You malign, fabricate, and twist.. Please stop. Take things in context and read them as they are (literally) and use metaphoric or allegorical methods when the texts (no matter what it is) determines such.

There you go again, impugning my integrity again. Where are the administrators when you need one. Strange but dispensationalists want to interpret John 5:28, 29 any way but literally. The reason: It destroys their doctrine when interpreted literally. The hour still means The hour regardless of what Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, MacArthur, and all other dispensationalists say..

So regarding the OP - your answer is plain. SBC'ers have no conflict with their definition of the church and dispensationalism.

Well Southern Baptists are getting lax when it comes to doctrinal integrity. In fact they have since the Scofield bible.

 

[gb93433]

Well Southern Baptists are getting lax when it comes to doctrinal integrity. In fact they have since the Scofield bible.

The Scofield Bible has been revised. I find few people today who would agree with the idea of a gap theory as taught in the first edition.

 

[OldRegular]

The Scofield Bible has been revised. I find few people today who would agree with the idea of a gap theory as taught in the first edition.

Actually it is in its third revision. I noticed in the first revision that the introductory remarks to the Song of Solomon had been changed. 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).

Given that dispensationalists insist that the Church is a mystery in the Old Testament it was necessary that they eliminate these remarks from subsequent editions.

 

[Allan]

You are accusing me of lying which is contrary to the rules of this forum. However, I have noticed on this forum and in life that dispensationalists are quick to question the integrity of those who insist that dispensationalism is contrary to Scripture and Church History. Furthermore, since this forum is run by dispensationalists it appears that they are not subject to its rules. You can believe it or not but it is a historical fact that dispensationalism is the brainchild of Darby and it was foisted on a gullible Church membership by the Scofield Bible. The historical or covenant premillennialism of the first centuries bears absolutely no relationship to diapensationalism. That is a fact and if you will make the effort you can discover this truth for yourself.

Allegorical interpretation has nothing to do with the amillennial interpretation of Scripture: truth does!



You obviously cannot read. The Baptist Faith and Message states clearly: The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.



There you go again, impugning my integrity again. Where are the administrators when you need one. Strange but dispensationalists want to interpret John 5:28, 29 any way but literally. The reason: It destroys their doctrine when interpreted literally. The hour still means The hour regardless of what Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, MacArthur, and all other dispensationalists say..




Well Southern Baptists are getting lax when it comes to doctrinal integrity. In fact they have since the Scofield bible.

No sir, you much like Skypair did, even though you are told repeatedly and consistantly you are patently incorrect in your accertions and given proof. But you still continue with the same incorrect and false information.

I am not impuning anything, but am merely stating what is obvious to anyone who has been reading most of your current threads and the refutes to much of your misunderstanding of their views. I personally have no problem with your view, it is with your constant, willful, and repeated misrepresentation that I am addressing even though and after you have been corrected numerous times. Even when you are shown by your own sorces you are incorrect you still continue in the same argument.

AGAIN - In relation to the OP concerning the Church and Baptist faith and message. Read the entire section and you will see that first address the local and currect people of the body both in one place and also other places. The second addresses those who are not current (deceased/past) and those yet future who make up the church as defined by the Baptist Faith and message both in the afore mentioned section and in the section regarding salvation.

As far as fact goes. Early Pre-mil church held a distinction between Israel and the church. The difference here was that many early pre-mils held that Israel (Jews) would be saved but not have any prominant roles in the Kingdom were as many Dispy's hold they will hold a prominant part but equal with that of the Church just different in function. Pre-Mills also held that Christ will physically return 'before' the Millennium (thus "pre") to bring judgment and to establish His 'earthly' Kingdom and rule this Kingdom for a literal 1000 year span.

Pre-mill is the foundation of the Dispy view but one does not have to be a Dispensationalist in order to be pre-mill. I stand closer to Historic Pre-mill personally with arguably some Dispensational tendencies.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Allan,

Please can you exaplin -Matt. 21:43 says: "There say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.", what Christ was talking about? What 'nation' speaks of?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

They may not make it a test of fellowship [though I believe some secretly do] but they are quick to tag you with the name "liberal".

You have been pretty hard on those who disagree with you, so I am not sure you have the moral high ground to complain.

 

[OldRegular]

You have been pretty hard on those who disagree with you, so I am not sure you have the moral high ground to complain.

Illustrations please and i will match you 2 for 1.

 

[Amy.G]

AGAIN - In relation to the OP concerning the Church and Baptist faith and message. Read the entire section and you will see that first address the local and currect people of the body both in one place and also other places. The second addresses those who are not current (deceased/past) and those yet future who make up the church as defined by the Baptist Faith and message both in the afore mentioned section and in the section regarding salvation.

Allan, I'm confused about the sections you refer to here. Section One (I) in the BFM is "The Scriptures". Section Two (II) is "God".

The church is addressed in Section VI.
It says in the last paragraph, "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of ALL the ages. (Emphasis mine.)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just quoting what it says.

 

[OldRegular]

Allan, I'm confused about the sections you refer to here. Section One (I) in the BFM is "The Scriptures". Section Two (II) is "God".

The church is addressed in Section VI.
It says in the last paragraph, "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of ALL the ages. (Emphasis mine.)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just quoting what it says.

Amy

It is hard for dispensationalists to face reality.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I'm confused about the sections you refer to here. Section One (I) in the BFM is "The Scriptures". Section Two (II) is "God".

The church is addressed in Section VI.
It says in the last paragraph, "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of ALL the ages. (Emphasis mine.)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just quoting what it says.

Amy,
There are two parts to the section "the Church".
I was distinguishing between them as the 'first part' and 'second part' NOT the first section and section of the BF&M.

That "all" you asked about. I was actaully 'marginally' incorrect in my previous post concerning the believers throughout "all" the ages because I overlooked the Rev 21 passage - I appologize for that error. However let me show you what I mean by "marginally".

Look at each scripture citations they give. All of them refer to those who have beleived AFTER Christ Jesus death burial and resurrection - only current and future believes. Not one cites anything about every person who has ever beleived is part of the Body of Christ - the Church which is specifically BEFORE His Second coming, reigning, judging and the creation of the New heaven and Earth. The only one that it "could" be alluding to is the Rev 21 passage when God has created a New Heaven and a New Earth and all believers are together as one people - No Pre-mill nor Dispy denies this they just don't call it a 'Church' per-say. They don't because of it potentially causing some problems in understanding since even scripture does not call it a church at this point (Rev 21) however the general meaning of an 'assembly' is what it is most likely referring to.

I say it refers to a general assembly and not the NT Church as described in the NT for 1) because of the definition previously given about what the Church is and consists of, and 2) because it is at this point Christ has already come, reigned for 1000 years, judged at the Great White Throne Judgment, and a New Heaven and Earth has been created.


Heb 11:39-40 (one of the verses given in Church Section) gives an absolute refute to the Church and Israel being the same.

In 39 it states 'they did not receive THE PROMISES'
And in 40 is states "But we have received SOMETHING BETTER" .

So if they, being saved Israel, did not receive yet the promises and we, being the Church, have received something better - that leaves those promises God made to His faithful Jews unresolved.

The NLT says it this way of vs 40:

For God had far better things in mind for us that would also benefit them, for they can't receive the prize at the end of the race until we finish the race.*

Those promises God made are still in effect and have not been given to us - the church for we have received something better than their promises.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy,
There are two parts to the section "the Church".
I was distinguishing between them as the 'first part' and 'second part' NOT the first section and section of the BF&M.

We must have different copies of the BF&M. Mine doesn't have 2 parts in the church section.

The promises made to Israel IMO are the same promises made to Gentiles, eternal life through Christ. But the OT saints did not receive it because Christ had not come yet. When Christ "preached to the spirits in prison", He preached the gospel, so that OT saints were saved ultimately as we are. That's what I think.

Also, we (Gentiles) have been grafted into the tree (Israel). It seems to me that whatever promises that await Israel, include us as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The promises made to Israel IMO are the same promises made to Gentiles, eternal life through Christ.

Where were the Gentiles promised restoration to the "Promised Land" in peace?

 

[Allan]

We must have different copies of the BF&M. Mine doesn't have 2 parts in the church section.

The promises made to Israel IMO are the same promises made to Gentiles, eternal life through Christ. But the OT saints did not receive it because Christ had not come yet. When Christ "preached to the spirits in prison", He preached the gospel, so that OT saints were saved ultimately as we are. That's what I think.

Also, we (Gentiles) have been grafted into the tree (Israel). It seems to me that whatever promises that await Israel, include us as well.

Amy,
BF&M 2000 with [PART 1&2] added by me for emphasis, excluding verses.

VI. The Church

[PART 1] A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.

[PART 2] The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

That is fine to hold what you will. But as I stated in my previous post concerning Heb 11:39-40 (one of the verses given in Church Section) gives an absolute refute to the Church and Israel being the same.

In 39 it states 'they did not receive THE PROMISES'
And in 40 is states "But we have received SOMETHING BETTER" .

So if they, being saved Israel, did not receive yet the promises and we, being the Church, have received something better - that leaves those promises God made to His faithful Jews unresolved.

The NLT says it this way of vs 40:

For God had far better things in mind for us that would also benefit them, for they can't receive the prize at the end of the race until we finish the race.*

Those promises God made are still in effect and have not been given to us - the church for we have received something better than their promises.


God made promises made that they HAVE NOT RECIEVED and yet we find Paul stating the Church DID NOT recieve these promises either, but we RECIEVED SOMETHING BETTER. So now what is God going to do regarding His word to His faithful Jewish people - never fulfill them? God did not give them to the CHurch as this verse plainly states but we have recevied something better than the promises made to them. Meaning that their promises though great and glorious are not the same nor comparititve to what was given the Church. And their promises can not be recieved (according to the passage) until, we the church finish 'our' race. Scripture calls this the "time of the Gentiles"


Anyhoo, it is ok to disagree especailly when we end up on the same place with the same things. :thumbs: