The Parenthesis Church

[DHK]

[/B]
We are not communicating. I did not post the passage from Ephesians to support dispensational opinion but to refute it.

OK, So I reread it. You posted a misrepresentation of dispensationalism, a biased quote, an inaccurate description, a refutation that wasn't refuting dispensationalism at all, for no accurate picture of dispensationalism was given.

 

[OldRegular]

OK, So I reread it. You posted a misrepresentation of dispensationalism, a biased quote, an inaccurate description, a refutation that wasn't refuting dispensationalism at all, for no accurate picture of dispensationalism was given.

Whatever! This forum is for posting "opinion" and you are entitled to post yours!:thumbsup::wavey:

 

[InTheLight]

You posted a misrepresentation of dispensationalism, a biased quote, an inaccurate description, a refutation that wasn't refuting dispensationalism at all, for no accurate picture of dispensationalism was given.

Slam dunk! Nailed it! Spot on!

 

[thomas15]

.....I quoted the dispensationalists I referenced accurately. I presented a second post on Hoyt's remarks!

You did? Where, in this thread or another? How did I miss that?

 

[OldRegular]

There has not been a single serious attempt on this thread to refute the classic dispensational concept that the Church is an "interruption" in God's plan for Israel. Instead there have been an endless series of "childish" comments. I must assume they are from those who belong to the Rapture Ready crowd.

AresMan, a former dispensationalist who apparently lives amongst them as I do, has corroborated much of what I have posted yet the Rapture Ready dispensationalists still post childish comments void of any substance.

My apologies AresMan for invoking your name.

 

[Bronconagurski]

There has not been a single serious attempt on this thread to refute the classic dispensational concept that the Church is an "interruption" in God's plan for Israel. Instead there have been an endless series of "childish" comments. I must assume they are from those who belong to the Rapture Ready crowd.

AresMan, a former dispensationalist who apparently lives amongst them as I do, has corroborated much of what I have posted yet the Rapture Ready dispensationalists still post childish comments void of any substance.

My apologies AresMan for invoking your name.

Well, then, I guess you win. Not surprising since the game was rigged.

 

[Allan]

I present 7 passages of Scripture showing that Jesus Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and you say they are pretty. Yet you tell me the two words "restore again" are significant. Talking about the kingdom of Israel is meaningless.

Hold on now, it isn't meaningless you are decrying there will be no such thing.
It has GREAT meaning as
1. "Jesus" will restore again a Kingdom to Israel
2. The Kingdom must be restored as it is no more or as if it is no more
3. It is being restored TO Israel

Everything you are saying will not happen we have the disciple asking Jesus about when the very thing you are say won't happen will - they ask this question because it directly pertains to the promises give TO Israel as a Nation.

They had not been a kingdom in a physical sense since they went into captivity; 722 BC for the northern kingdom and 587 BC for the southern kingdom. THe only sense in which they were related to the Kingdom of God in that time frame, whether it was present or not, until the ministry of Jesus Christ was as Paul said unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Well, much more than that but.. you make my point. You illustrate that the Kingdom of Israel is not the Kingdom of God but with the scripture in question illustrates that at some point the Kingdom of Israel operates in the Kingdom of God.

You ask a pertinent question. The Apostle Paul tells us: For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: I believe there were two Israels, National Israel and the true believers among National Israel. It is not always clear, if ever, in the Old Testament which one is being addressed.

Ok. but were not talking about the Apostle Paul but the disciples (apostles) in direct conversation with Jesus about restoring again the Kingdom TO Isreal.

I have never claimed that the Church is related in any way to National Israel other than that the Nation Israel, and then the Jews, were simply a means for God to bring Jesus Christ into the world. Once that happened God's purpose for national Israel was finished. I believe the Church is the continuation of Spiritual Israel as Paul shows in the parable of the olive trees.

I know you have never made such a declaration.. my point is that if the Kingdom restored was speaking of Kingdom of God, and Israel was speaking of the Church... then there is a biblical problem here, as the Kingdom of God had to have been removed OR corrupted to the point it needed to be brought back to its original power and status. Therefore if that is the case the Kingdom of God has not always been or if it has, it had lost its power and authority and thus it's King was gone or lame.

Then there is a problem. Was the Kingdom of God present prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom of God is not mentioned as such in the Old Testament. It appears from numerous passages in the New Testament that the presence of the Kingdom of God depended on the Incarnation.

Again, we are talking about the Kingdom being restored TO Israel by Jesus because they asked - are YOU going to restore the Kingdom TO Israel at this time?

Jesus Christ told the pharisees: Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. [Matthew 21:43] This certainly implies that the Kingdom of God was associated with Israel but bigger mistakes have been made in interpreting Scripture. Both Adam Clarke and John Gill say that this Scripture means that the Gospel was taken from Israel. That certainly makes sense since Israel had rejected and murdered the One who brought it. In fact it is much more believable than your statement:

Again, you are picking and pulling from places and events that do not speak to what I am. Yes the Kingdom OF GOD was taken from Israel and I agree with Gill and Clarke, in so far as you have stated - The Spiritual purpose(s) of Israel was taken from them and given to another, not as a second plan but in fact as part of the His full plan.

However, my contention is this - regarding the Kingdom of God, it does in fact include the Kingdom being restored TO Israel at some point because we have the disciples asking if Jesus was going to restore again the Kingdom TO Israel. The implication is it apparently was a part of Jesus teaching of the Kingdom of God and therefore led to the very question being looked at.

I have presented Scripture showing that Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to Gentiles in Rome after he was rejected by the Jews there. He preached the same Gospel to Jew and Gentile, the only Gospel there is. The Kingdom of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are inexorably bound just as the Gospel and the Church are inexorably bound.

Your off on another subject again. Please stay with what I'm asking you regarding the Jesus teaching the Kingdom of God and directly following the next thing the Holy Spirit records is the disciples asking when Jesus will restore the Kingdom again to Israel.

Jesus Christ told the Jews that the Kingdom was taken from them. Gill's interpretation that in this case the Kingdom of God was the Gospel of Jesus Christ is certainly plausible. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that a literal kingdom [of God?] will be restored to national Israel or that they will ever preach the Gospel. In fact only believers can preach the Gospel,

Many scholars (even many reformed scholars) will disagree you view and in fact, it appears the Disciples did as well when they asked Jesus when the Jesus will restore again the Kingdom to Israel.

 

[Allan]

There has not been a single serious attempt on this thread to refute the classic dispensational concept that the Church is an "interruption" in God's plan for Israel. Instead there have been an endless series of "childish" comments. I must assume they are from those who belong to the Rapture Ready crowd.

AresMan, a former dispensationalist who apparently lives amongst them as I do, has corroborated much of what I have posted yet the Rapture Ready dispensationalists still post childish comments void of any substance.

My apologies AresMan for invoking your name.

That is because no one who is dispensational agrees with what you present as their argument. You have been told this MANY time over the years here, proven this, and yet you still taught to same baggage.

Like Covenant Theology, which is ever changing and modifying (whether fast or slow) from it's inceptional form, so to is Dispensationalism.
There are, just as with Covenant theology, many branches of Dispensaitional theology. I know of very few how even hold to classical dispensationalism (if by this you an early form) and know of none personally.

 

[OldRegular]

Allan I cannot agree that there is anything left for Israel as a nation in God's plan, other than the elect. We will just have to agree to disagree.

In the OpP I presented quotations from prominent dispensationalists. All I got in response was snide remarks!

 

[Iconoclast]

That is because no one who is dispensational agrees with what you present as their argument. You have been told this MANY time over the years here, proven this, and yet you still taught to same baggage.

Like Covenant Theology, which is ever changing and modifying (whether fast or slow) from it's inceptional form, so to is Dispensationalism.
There are, just as with Covenant theology, many branches of Dispensaitional theology. I know of very few how even hold to classical dispensationalism (if by this you an early form) and know of none personally.

Well any change is welcome, because what OldREG has posted was what was taught absolutely. As a matter of fact look up Baptist Bible College of Clark Summit Pennsylvania.
i think they have not changed much since the 70's

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father

From BBC-

We believe that God will fulfill the biblical covenants made with the nation of Israel. Though they are now dispersed among the nations, they will be re-gathered in the land of Israel and saved as a nation at the premillennial coming of Christ to the earth. At that time, Christ will begin his Davidic rule over the world for 1,000 years and continue to
reign in the eternal state.

We believe in the bodily resurrection and judgment of unbelievers after the millennial reign of Christ. We believe in the eternal existence and punishment of all unbelievers in the lake of fire and the eternal existence and blessedness of all believers in the new heavens and earth.

 

[thomas15]

There has not been a single serious attempt on this thread to refute the classic dispensational concept that the Church is an "interruption" in God's plan for Israel. Instead there have been an endless series of "childish" comments. I must assume they are from those who belong to the Rapture Ready crowd.

AresMan, a former dispensationalist who apparently lives amongst them as I do, has corroborated much of what I have posted yet the Rapture Ready dispensationalists still post childish comments void of any substance.

My apologies AresMan for invoking your name.

Call me whatever makes you happy but I'm still waiting for you to show me where you correctly used Hoyt in the three views book. My opinion is that you structured the discourse in a way to make any serious attempt to refute impossible. You might think that is productive, I don't.

 

[DHK]

Allan I cannot agree that there is anything left for Israel as a nation in God's plan, other than the elect. We will just have to agree to disagree.

In the OpP I presented quotations from prominent dispensationalists. All I got in response was snide remarks!

You quoted from Hoyt, who was quoted in Close. When quotes are made from others they often become skewed. Here is what is said about Close's Book, "The Meaning of The Millennium: Four Views," the book you actually took your quote from:

Since the first century, Christians have agreed that Christ will return. But since that time there have also been many disagreements. How will Christ return? When will he return? What sort of kingdom will he establish? What is the meaning of the millennium? These questions persist today.
Four major views on the millennium have had both a long history and a host of Christian adherents. In this book Robert G. Clouse brings together proponents of each view: George Eldon Ladd on historic premillenniallism, Herman A. Hoyt on dispensational premillennialism, Loraine Boettner on post-millennialism and Anthony A. Hoekema on amillennialism.
After each view is presented, proponents of the three competing views respond from their own perspectives. Here you'll encounter a lively and productive debate among respected Christian scholars that will help you gain clearer and deeper understanding of the different ways the church approaches the meaning of the millennium.

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=794


The quote you gave does not seem very accurate, or rather does not reflect traditional "dispensational premillennialism," which would lead me to ask, in what context was it quoted?

 

[thomas15]

You quoted from Hoyt, who was quoted in Close. When quotes are made from others they often become skewed. Here is what is said about Close's Book, "The Meaning of The Millennium: Four Views," the book you actually took your quote from:

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=794


The quote you gave does not seem very accurate, or rather does not reflect traditional "dispensational premillennialism," which would lead me to ask, in what context was it quoted?

DHK, the problem is OldRegular didn't quote Hoyt at all. Unless he used an invisable type font.

 

[OldRegular]

You quoted from Hoyt, who was quoted in Close. When quotes are made from others they often become skewed. Here is what is said about Close's Book, "The Meaning of The Millennium: Four Views," the book you actually took your quote from:

http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=794


The quote you gave does not seem very accurate, or rather does not reflect traditional "dispensational premillennialism," which would lead me to ask, in what context was it quoted?

Read Clouse!

 

[DHK]

Read Clouse!

Well, I don't have the book. I have a few others on my reading list that take priority. And finally, this thread needs to be closed at 30 pages.