The Israel of God

[Darrell C]

What is that about getting the log out of your eye?



I would also note that most of the Baptist Confessions support the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. I would further note that, regardless of all their blasphemous doctrine, Roman Catholics do not believe the Church is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel!

And isn't that one of the issues you seek to champion? lol


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I don't believe I have called dispensationalism heretical. Surgeon called Darby a heretic because of his views on the atonement.

So we can go through your posts and not find a charge of heresy against a dispensational view?

Is this true?

And again appealing to men for truth.

Spurgeon is not the rule of measure for truth, only the Word of God is.

I have called the doctrine of the "parenthesis Church" blasphemous.

As do many others who have been influenced by Catholic Doctrine.

What is sad is that this is a false argument. Just because there are Dispensational believers and teachers that do...does not mean everyone does.

What is also clear is that you hold to a belief that the Church is identical to believers under the Covenant of Law, meaning they were saved identically to those in the Church.

While the Church is not parenthetical in the sense that God will revert to an Old Testament Economy of salvation which is temporal, the Church began on the Day of Pentecost.

That is irrefutable Biblical fact.

All believers who are saved today, in the Tribulation, and in the thousand year Reign of Christ have to, and will have to...be born again, which is accomplished only through faith in Christ and His death which was not possible prior to Christ actually dying.

Until that is understood the disjointed doctrine of Catholicism will still have her claws in even those assuming themselves to be Reformed.

The true reformation comes through the New Birth which cannot occur apart from the eternal indwelling of God, which was only a promise given to Israel, and given while she was divided. There is no historical fulfillment of this in Israel's History until...

...Pentecost.

Parenthetical? No.

The new man? Yes.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You really ought to know what the father of pre-trib-diepensationalism, and his adherents, taught!

You have been showed Paul's teachings many time. Yet you still know nothing, despite your exhaustive research of the works of men, about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture taught by Paul, which is verified through the events of the Tribulation taught in Revelation and supported by all Old Testament Prophecy related to end-time events.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I am not exactly sure what it is but since no one here has claimed to believe in it you are just blowing in the wind. Why are you calling things blasphemous which no one has acknowledged any belief in? Are you in fight with the air that surrounds you? Shadow boxing? You don't have to fear. The doctrine you fear is not going to come out of the wood-work to bite you.

Yes it will.





God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

Where is the lie you speak of? Let's review:




True. All that is lacking is a response to the Scripture provided as a basis for the views presented.




True. You refuse to address the points raised.




True. Before the institution of the Catholic Church men relied upon Scripture alone. Now, as seen in your constant appeal to the works of men, those of catholic persuasion and influence constantly point to Church Fathers to support their doctrine.

Views such as only one resurrection in Revelation, denial of a thousand year period in Revelation 20, spiritualization of prophecy...began in earnest with Catholic Teachings.




True, Christians have always had the Record of Scripture as the basis for Christian Doctrine, and those who maintain Scripture as the Only Authority, as opposed to those who appeal to and magnify the Authority of men...

...remain true to those first century teachings.

And while a similarity with Darby can be seen with First Century Biblical Teachings...many Catholic Doctrines cannot. That some people cherry pick which Catholic Doctrine they will embrace and adhere to does not lessen the fact that those teachings originate from Catholic Doctrine, making the adherent...

...Catholic.




True. You constantly post the same works of men in various threads.

You're hatred for the First Century Doctrine of the Rapture (although the word rapture is derived from a Catholic Translation, that does not mean it is not a suitable word to translate harpazo, particularly when it is Catholics that caused this word to be the primary word used) has you obsessed with trying to deny it.




Neither a lie nor true...yet.

You would actually have to address the questions and points raised for it to be true.




True. How else do you explain your adamant and incessant appeals to the works of men (whether positive or negative) and your constant ignoring of the Scripture itself?




True.

You seek to disrupt conversation which, in the tradition of Catholic mentality, is dangerous in your mind.

Just can't let the plowboy think for himself, right?

If your doctrine were sound it should be no problem to address the doctrine by testing it, and the doctrine of others, in light of Scripture.

But you do not do that. Your doctrine forces you to rely on insults and a boorish manner that so disrupts doctrinal discussion that people forget the OPs.




True.

And I wish the question could be labeled as answered with true, but that has not been seen to be the case as of yet. It seems your conscience is seared to the point where your inability to deal with simple questions about your doctrinal views goes unnoticed to you, though you are constantly asked about it.



This one, well, maybe it isn't true. Maybe you are intentionally disrupting the threads you participate. I'd like to think it wasn't true, but in either case...

...still no lie in my statement.

I can only state what I see, and what I see is someone desperate to debunk a First Century teaching and because he cannot do it on a doctrinal level, he must do so by antagonizing the emotions of other members.


God bless.

The LIE IS: The claim that Scripture supports the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church and the claim that the Church is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in GOD's program for national or ethnic Israel. That claim is totally false and comes out of the mind of John Nelson Darby, whom Charles Spurgeon called a heretic, while he was recuperating from an accident. Darby supposedly got a new revelation while reading Isaiah 32!

I understand that you "rapture ready people" don't like to acknowledge that the pre-trib-doctrine of Darby leads to the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church. But when you embrace false doctrine you have to live with it!

Following are remarks by Chafer and Ryrie. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

http://twonewcovenants.com/covenant/covenant1.html

Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

The contents of the present volume are really an enlargement of lectures on Bible prophecy that have been given at various conferences during the past few years. It was never convenient to have these stenographically reported at the time of their delivery, and so the substance of the addresses has been very carefully gone over and is now presented for the consideration of those who are interested in the revelation which the Spirit of God has given concerning things to come. It is the author's fervent conviction that the failure to understand what is revealed in Scripture concerning the Great Parenthesis between Messiah's rejection, with the consequent setting aside of Israel nationally, and the regathering of God's earthly people and recognition by the Lord in the last days, is the fundamental cause for many conflicting and unscriptural prophetic teachings. Once this parenthetical period is understood and the present work of God during this age is apprehended, the whole prophetic program unfolds with amazing clearness.

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-...t-parenthesis/

To the contrary, however, the Baptist Faith and Message adopted in 2000 says about the Church:

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.

 

[Darrell C]

The LIE IS: The claim that Scripture supports the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church and the claim that the Church is a "parenthesis", an interruption, in GOD's program for national or ethnic Israel.

The thread is the Israel of God...try to focus.

The Church is the cumulative goal of Israel's redemption.

By the end of the Sheep and Goat Judgment...All of National Israel will be saved, born again believers, and they will inhabit the Kingdom, just as the Gentile Christians saved in the Tribulation...as physical Christians, the Body of Christ, the One Fold with One Shepherd.

And at the end of the thousand year reign, all believers of all time will be united in the Eternal State, where we will finally see only that One Fold.

That claim is totally false and comes out of the mind of John Nelson Darby, whom Charles Spurgeon called a heretic, while he was recuperating from an accident. Darby supposedly got a new revelation while reading Isaiah 32!

I understand that you "rapture ready people" don't like to acknowledge that the pre-trib-doctrine of Darby leads to the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church. But when you embrace false doctrine you have to live with it!

Following are remarks by Chafer and Ryrie. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.



Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.



To the contrary, however, the Baptist Faith and Message adopted in 2000 says about the Church:

Tsk, tsk, quoting non-Catholics does not nullify that it is a Catholic Tradition to try to validate Scripture with the works of men, rather than the Biblical Practice of validating the works of men with Scripture.

The Christian Faith revealed through the Holy Spirit beginning on the Day of Pentecost and the equally inspired teachings which are the only teachings worthy of our trust says many things about the Church as well. What they don't say is that the Body of Christ existed prior to Pentecost, and when we balance the Whole Counsel of God we see that clearly.

Which takes us back to the first point I made in this thread, that while National Israel was not eternally forgiven, eternally indwelt, and had not received that which is only promise in the Old Testament, we still recognize that they are a created Witness Nation for God, and that God has not cast them away. We still recognize the distinction between temporal blessing, promise, and provision and the realization of that which God said He would do.

We have to keep Israel in her temporal context that we are not forced to nullify a large part of Scripture.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

To the contrary, however, the Baptist Faith and Message adopted in 2000 says about the Church:

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.

This is a true statement, as we see that the Old Testament believer has been made perfect through the Work of Christ.

That does not make the Old Testament believer a part of the Church in the Old Testament, any more than a Gentile Proselyte actually became a Jew. Their faith was counted as righteousness, but they were still awaiting redemption through Christ.

Not sure what kind of Baptist's adopted this, but if it is meant to say Old Testament Believers were members of the Body of Christ, the Church...that is error.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

You have been showed Paul's teachings many time. Yet you still know nothing, despite your exhaustive research of the works of men, about the Pre-Tribulation Rapture taught by Paul, which is verified through the events of the Tribulation taught in Revelation and supported by all Old Testament Prophecy related to end-time events.


God bless.

Correction: "You have been shown", not showed!

It is incorrect to say that Paul taught a false doctrine, the so-called-pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. You must understand the following or you will never understand Scripture no matter how much you mouth it:

Paul wrote under the guidance of GOD, therefore, Paul could not teach a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church!

 

[DHK]

Correction: "You have been shown", not showed!

It is incorrect to say that Paul taught a false doctrine, the so-called-pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. You must understand the following or you will never understand Scripture no matter how much you mouth it:

As you said:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Paul wrote under the guidance of GOD, therefore, Paul could not teach a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church!

But then Paul never taught "the trinity," nor any of the points of TULIP.
He didn't even teach Christology because that word isn't in the Bible either.

But make no doubt, "the rapture" is taught in the Bible. Maybe not the way that you think we believe, for you simply parrot your authorities and have no idea what the actual beliefs are of those whom you debate.
But there is a rapture.

 

[OldRegular]

As you said:

But then Paul never taught "the trinity," nor any of the points of TULIP.
He didn't even teach Christology because that word isn't in the Bible either.

But make no doubt, "the rapture" is taught in the Bible. Maybe not the way that you think we believe, for you simply parrot your authorities and have no idea what the actual beliefs are of those whom you debate.
But there is a rapture.

I am not from Missouri but no one has shown Scripture yet that supports the pre-trib-removal of the Church. That doctrine was the offspring of John Nelson Darby!

I would also add that essentially all the authorities I have quoted, other then the Bible which is the ultimate authority, have themselves been or are disciples of John Nelson Darby!

 

[DHK]

I am not from Missouri but no one has shown Scripture yet that supports the pre-trib-removal of the Church. That doctrine was the offspring of John Nelson Darby!

I would also add that essentially all the authorities I have quoted, other then the Bible which is the ultimate authority, have themselves been or are disciples of John Nelson Darby!

Many people have shown you scripture that would support a rapture. Because you don't accept it doesn't mean it is not there. It is still evidence worth consideration. And it has nothing to do with any man. The Bible is the Bible. Deal with the Word of God.

 

[Darrell C]

Correction: "You have been shown", not showed!

It is incorrect to say that Paul taught a false doctrine, the so-called-pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. You must understand the following or you will never understand Scripture no matter how much you mouth it:

So you want to now drag pointing out typos into it, is that it? lol

Okay. That will fit right into ignoring the Scripture, appealing to men, and name-calling.

Popish, my friend, very popish.



So just how many resurrections are there in Revelation again?

The "lie" is that I view the Church as parenthetical in a Dispensational manner.

Why is it you did not address that?


God bless.

 

[DHK]

This thread is over 30 pages and needs to be closed.