The Parenthesis Church

[OldRegular]

When you begin to treat other people with some respect and are willing to communicate the views they themselves espouse in a way that they agree with then you will have some reasonable responses and some actual respect yourself.

I have pointed out something that dispensationalists don't want to admit is a part of their doctrine. Well it is and you must live with it even if you will not defend it.

Until then you are just acting like a jerk.

You are using the same tactic as HOSS!

 

[InTheLight]

NO! You just won't face the truth. The dispensational heresy of a "parenthesis" Church cannot be found in the Bible!

You have not yet established the the "parenthesis Church" is a part of dispensationalism. Establish that and maybe we would take your argument seriously.

If I were to say:

The Calvinistic theology of God not exhaustively knowing and decreeing the future is heresy and you need to quit affirming this heresy!

how would you react?

 

[Iconoclast]

You have not yet established the the "parenthesis Church" is a part of dispensationalism. Establish that and maybe we would take your argument seriously.

If I were to say:

The Calvinistic theology of God not exhaustively knowing and decreeing the future is heresy and you need to quit affirming this heresy!

how would you react?

Old regular is correct, ITL.
the parenthesis has always been part of the dispensational system. He did not make it up.That is the classic teaching that has been disproven.

http://creationconcept.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/h-a-ironsides-great-parenthesis-theory/

The most basic disagreement between dispensationalism and Reformed theology centers around the relationship between the New Testament church and Old Testament Israel. According to dispensationalism, the church age is a parenthesis in the Jewish kingdom program prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament church at Pentecost, they teach, was an absolutely new entity, a mystery to which no Old Testament prophecy had directly referred. They teach that all the Jewish kingdom prophecies referred to a Jewish millennial kingdom that was postponed until after the unexpected church age because of the Jewish rejection of Jesus. Of course, Reformed theology disagrees with this teaching.

Classical dispensationalists refer to the present day Church as a "parenthesis" or temporary interlude in the progress of Israel's prophesied history.[10] Progressive dispensationalism "softens" the Church/Israel distinction by seeing some Old Testament promises as expanded by the New Testament to include the Church. However, progressives never view this expansion as replacing promises to its original audience, Israel. [11]

The parenthesis theory of the Kingdom and the Church. According to this theory, (and it is only a theory) the Church Age is an unforeseen parenthesis in the Jewish program prophesied by Old Testament prophets. If the Jews had not rejected Jesus, the Jewish Kingdom would have begun at our Lord's first coming. But, God's "Plan A" was thwarted, or interrupted, or failed, and the Church age totally unforeseen by the Old Testament prophets was interjected, or, "Plan B" substituted for "Plan A." The dispensationalists call this the parenthetical Church age. My Bible knows nothing about a God who does not have power to perform His plan. The God of the Bible is sovereign in creation, sovereign in redemption and sovereign in providence. He is all-wise in planning and all-powerful in performing.
We must ask the dispensational teachers the following questions about their parenthesis theory. If the Church is a parenthesis, when did it begin, and how do you know? When will it end, and how do you know?

 

[InTheLight]

Old regular is correct, ITL.
the parenthesis has always been part of the dispensational system. He did not make it up.That is the classic teaching that has been disproven.

http://creationconcept.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/h-a-ironsides-great-parenthesis-theory/

The key sentence from the article you linked to:

...they claim that the church of the present age was unknown to the prophets. They called the present age of the church a great parenthesis.


OK, the claim by H.A. Ironsides (I'm not familiar with him) that the church was an unknown to the OT prophets is worth exploring. Also, stating the church was an unknown to the OT prophets is quite different from OldRegular's contention, "Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead" and "God found it necessary to interrupt His program for the Jews because their leaders rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and He was unable to establish the Messianic kingdom."

So where is the Church mentioned in the Old Testament? The article attempts to show this by Jerusalem being raised up. I see no reference to the Church in Isa. 2:2 and Zech 14:10-11 as the article claims.

 

[OldRegular]

I was raised a dispy and it makes the most sense to me. I am open to learning alternative theology in this area. However, your tactic of claiming dispensationalists believe in a parenthesis church is ridiculous. It's a strawman argument.

It is not a strawman argument, it is a fact. You may not agree with that teaching of the top dogs in the dispensational movement but that is your problem. I believe that most dispensationalists only know of the 70th week, the pre-trib rapture, the GrreAAt 7 year tribulation, and Israel is still top Dog. That does not change what Chafer, Pentecost, Walvoord, and Ryrie teach.

When Christ said,

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

that sounds like an original plan to me and not improvisation.

I agree!

First you compare dispensationalism to a cult, merely because it became popular in the 19th century at the same time that Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Science arose. This is guilt by association.

Is it guilt by association or your guilty conscience?

Secondly you blithely say, "Dispensationalists denies the church is in prophecy" and dispys believe "because the Jews rejected Christ God started the Church instead" and "the church is often referred to as the 'mystery parenthesis' form of the Kingdom." I've never heard any dispy say this, ever.

Then get their books and read them!

In short, you are making stuff up and then shooting it down. Mandym is correct that mischaracterizing a person's belief and then 'proving' it wrong is a common tactic of Calvinists. (Non-cals are guilty of it as well.)

Look! InTheLight, I have been on this board for a number of years. Continual insults from dispensationalists to those who don't believe their stuff is the norm! Now I bring up a bedrock doctrine of Dispensationalists that you don't like and you and others get your tail in a twist. Well unwind!

I am not making anything up.

Since I don't believe the Church was a parentheses in God's plan I'm not listening to you.

I agree, the Church was not. Jesus Christ did not die for a parenthesis!

Matthew 13:13, 14
13. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

I am not speaking in parables, I am stating a fact and you don't like it!

Really? Scofield Bibles? How many people you think have a Scofield Bible these days?

I wish no one did but it is now in its 4th edition. It has warped the thinking of many people. I would say the same about that monstrosity by Dake!

 

[Iconoclast]

When you begin to treat other people with some respect and are willing to communicate the views they themselves espouse in a way that they agree with then you will have some reasonable responses and some actual respect yourself. Until then you are just acting like a jerk.

Let's see if we can tell by your posts:

Which is the problem with cals on this board. They present argument based on their biased and skewed view of others beliefs (strawmen). Then they feel they have won a debate because they framed the wording (incorrectly) to fit their own characterizing and misrepresentation. It is quite dishonest.

First I responded directly to another post that was not yours which is much in the same vein as my post. But you singled mine out. Nice!

Second I in fact appreciate the reformed view even though I disagree with a small portion of it. What is problematic is the dishonest way in which cals characterize others opposing views. And the post I responded to made a good case for that habitual habit of cals

[Caustic debate tactics like this are the norm for cals/QUOTE]

Hard to take you seriously with statements like this

What we do not like is the manner in which you present your opposition. You present yourself as one who is more concerned about winning a debate rather than the truth found in scripture.

hey, mandy....why not try and take your own advice that you offer OR.
Physician, heal thyself. Nothing he said was caustic. You do this when you cannot respond to the position offered...read your own posts:wavey::wavey:

 

[Iconoclast]

The key sentence from the article you linked to:

...they claim that the church of the present age was unknown to the prophets. They called the present age of the church a great parenthesis.


OK, the claim by H.A. Ironsides (I'm not familiar with him) that the church was an unknown to the OT prophets is worth exploring. Also, stating the church was an unknown to the OT prophets is quite different from OldRegular's contention, "Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead" and "God found it necessary to interrupt His program for the Jews because their leaders rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and He was unable to establish the Messianic kingdom."

So where is the Church mentioned in the Old Testament? The article attempts to show this by Jerusalem being raised up. I see no reference to the Church in Isa. 2:2 and Zech 14:10-11 as the article claims.

ITL, Some of us are a bit older and sat under this teaching for years...so it is no strawman we are posting about. OLD REGULAR has been right on with his posts.
i was not fully entering into this discussion except to validate what he was posting. I am an ex dispy myself. i :wavey::wavey:can still teach it, although i do not believe it is close to the biblical truth.

 

[OldRegular]

You have not yet established the the "parenthesis Church" is a part of dispensationalism. Establish that and maybe we would take your argument seriously.

If I were to say:

The Calvinistic theology of God not exhaustively knowing and decreeing the future is heresy and you need to quit affirming this heresy!

how would you react?

Have you read any books by dispensationalists Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord. You might look first at the following:

Herman Hoyt writing in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88.

There is a big difference between saying the Church for which Jesus Christ died is just an interruption in God's plan for Israel and saying

The Calvinistic theology of God not exhaustively knowing and decreeing the future is heresy and you need to quit affirming this heresy![/COLOR]

If you can't see the difference then live with yourself!

 

[OldRegular]

ITL, Some of us are a bit older and sat under this teaching for years...so it is no strawman we are posting about. OLD REGULAR has been right on with his posts.
i was not fully entering into this discussion except to validate what he was posting. I am an ex dispy myself. i :wavey::wavey:can still teach it, although i do not believe it is close to the biblical truth.

Thanks much Icon.:love2: I believe that some of the dispensationalists have their tail in a twist. I understand that many, if not most, dispensationalists are not aware of the dispensational doctrine regarding the Church. Even the ones who are knowledgeable do not want to discuss it!:tonofbricks:

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks much Icon.:love2: I believe that some of the dispensationalists have their tail in a twist. I understand that many, if not most, dispensationalists are not aware of the dispensational doctrine regarding the Church. Even the ones who are knowledgeable do not want to discuss it!

OR---
What is funny is they see the error of it also.ITL does not accept the radical nature of dispy doctrine.I still have those books on my shelf.:wavey:
To their credit.....they had many good and correct teaching...and they looked for the Lord's return:thumbs: The blessed hope:thumbs:

 

[mandym]

It is not a strawman argument, it is a fact. You may not agree with that teaching of the top dogs in the dispensational movement but that is your problem. I believe that most dispensationalists only know of the 70th week, the pre-trib rapture, the GrreAAt 7 year tribulation, and Israel is still top Dog. That does not change what Chafer, Pentecost, Walvoord, and Ryrie teach.

Then you need to present it as what they teach and stop trying to broad brush everyone else as if you can read everyone's mind.

 

[mandym]

[/B]
Let's see if we can tell by your posts:

[Caustic debate tactics like this are the norm for cals/QUOTE]







hey, mandy....why not try and take your own advice that you offer OR.
Physician, heal thyself. Nothing he said was caustic. You do this when you cannot respond to the position offered...read your own posts:wavey::wavey:

What a shame you cannot tell the difference.

 

[InTheLight]

Is it guilt by association or your guilty conscience?

Puh-leeze....

Then get their books and read them!

You started this thread. Why not flesh it out and actually defend it yourself.

Look! InTheLight, I have been on this board for a number of years. Continual insults from dispensationalists to those who don't believe their stuff is the norm! Now I bring up a bedrock doctrine of Dispensationalists that you don't like and you and others get your tail in a twist. Well unwind!

Stop misrepresenting dispensationalism. Show me one dispy writer that states, "because the Jews rejected Christ God started the Church instead".

 

[InTheLight]

Have you read any books by dispensationalists Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord. You might look first at the following:

Herman Hoyt writing in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88.

Instead of directing me to read some esoteric treatise why don't you just lay it out yourself? Or can't you make a cogent argument?

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight

The key sentence from the article you linked to:

...they claim that the church of the present age was unknown to the prophets. They called the present age of the church a great parenthesis.


OK, the claim by H.A. Ironsides (I'm not familiar with him) that the church was an unknown to the OT prophets is worth exploring.

H.A. Ironsides was a well respected commentator.

So where is the Church mentioned in the Old Testament? The article attempts to show this by Jerusalem being raised up. I see no reference to the Church in Isa. 2:2 and Zech 14:10-11 as the article claims.

ITL.....non dispy thought sees Zion and Jerusalem Ot promises to speak of the Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem......

gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[InTheLight]

ITL.....non dispy thought sees Zion and Jerusalem Ot promises to speak of the Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem......

[/B]

Sounds like non-dispys spiritualize Jerusalem into the Church when it suits their purposes.

 

[Iconoclast]

Sounds like non-dispys spiritualize Jerusalem into the Church when it suits their purposes.

ITL,

Take a look at it,before you are critical.take a concordance....look up the verses that speak of zion and jerusalem.....you might be surprised at what you find.

 

[Iconoclast]

[/B]
Let's see if we can tell by your posts:

What a shame you cannot tell the difference.

Mandy...I can tell the difference. He responds to the posts.....you attack him.

 

[mandym]

Mandy...I can tell the difference. He responds to the posts.....you attack him.

Very sad.:BangHead:

 

[OldRegular]

You started this thread. Why not flesh it out and actually defend it yourself.

I don't need to defend myself. It is dispensationalism that needs defending. You read Icon's post and know what I posted is true.

If you don't know what dispensationalism is then you need to cut the strings. There are some, called progressive dispensationalists, who are moving away from the classic dispensational view of the Church. You might check them out. Actually you should already know about them.

Stop misrepresenting dispensationalism. Show me one dispy writer that states, "because the Jews rejected Christ God started the Church instead".

What I have posted is correct. You have a computer and are on the internet; you search.