The Parenthesis Church

[AresMan]

AresMan

A number of years ago I taught Daniel in a SS Class and wrote the following about the 70th week of Daniel. I don't claim any originality for all of it but it mirrowed my thoughts at the time and still does.


Daniel 9:27 is perhaps the most difficult and controversial passage in this prophecy. Dispensationalism believes this verse and part of Daniel 9:26 corresponds to the 70th week and will be fulfilled during the seven year ‘great tribulation’ whenever that occurs. I believe the prophecy related to this verse was fulfilled through the ministry and death of Jesus Christ.

Daniel 9:27, KJV
27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

It seems obvious that the subject of this passage refers back to the subject of verse 26, the Messiah. Note first that this passage does not say that He shall make a covenant but that He shall confirm a covenant. The word confirm translates the Hebrew word ‘gabar’ and is used 25 times in the Old Testament. It is translated prevail 14 times and confirm once. The passage could read “He shall cause a covenant to prevail”.

Jesus Christ came to die [John 12:27, 1 Corinthians 15:3, Acts 2:23] for the sins of His people and for His Church. By His death and resurrection He fulfilled His part in the Covenant of Grace, made within the Godhead before the foundation of the world. Jesus Christ preached the Kingdom of God and salvation from sin, primarily to the Jewish people, for about three and one half years before He was crucified on the cross of Calvary. The death of Jesus Christ in the midst of the week meant that the the sacrifice and the oblation offered in the temple were useless, as indicated by the rending of the veil of the temple from top to bottom opening the way into the Holy of Holies. Still the sacrifices persisted until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Understanding the last half of the verse is much more difficult. We are then told: for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation. One may wonder if the continuation of useless animal sacrifices in the temple that God had rejected were considered to be an abomination. Certainly these animal sacrifices were useless. The writer of Proverbs tells us:

Proverbs 15:8, KJV
8. The sacrifice of the wicked [is] an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright [is] his delight.

For these abominations Jesus Christ shall make ‘it’, the temple, desolate until the consummation, that is, the end of time. Perhaps this is what Jesus Christ was referring to when He said:

Matthew 23:37-39, KJV
37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
38. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Yes, I agree that the Temple was "desolate" until the final desolation.

 

[agedman]

In fairness and truth for this post: I am a calvinist/modified covenant/dispensation thinker.

In that, I find the Doctrines of Grace wonderfully etched throughout the Scriptures.

A view of an actual millennial reign of Christ and believers on this earth as a significant part of prophetic understanding in which a physical Israel is restored and returned to God by God removing the blinding and implanting specifically in the hearts of the Israeli acknowledgement of the truth of Christ, is also part of my own view.

In taking the Scriptures as literal as possible (Daniel, Ezekial,the Gospels, writings of Paul and John...), that time (millennium) is the most significant merge that will ever taken place; Believers of all ages are ruling with Christ; therefore there is a world wide Spiritual and Physical Israel that controls the total planet for a 1000 years, just as the antichrist has and will attempt(ed) and failed throughout the centuries.

All who hold pure covenant thinking that excludes a literal millennial reign on this earth for 1000 years, are in huge violation of John's writings concerning Rev. 20 where John is very specific as to an actual physical return, rule of this earth, the time, the purpose, the extent, the end, and the results. They violate the words of John in Rev. 21 by placing the judgment of the world out of place with the physical return of Christ - as the angels told the disciples (apostles) that He "In like manner" (physically) would return.

Such teaching and writing (using OR language) are heretical; attempts of "spiritualizing" that wonderful time to the current age of Grace for at least two reasons. First, it violates what this current church age structure is intended in the Scriptures. Second, it is unscriptural because it violates the prophetic words and the creation of Ezekiel's temple vision (measurements that are not applicable to any Israeli temple of the past, and not applicable to the new heaven and earth). Only a pure literal reading of the last 9 chapters of Ezekiel is appropriate, for there is not one clue given that it is to be "spiritualized" into something else - the same with reading of Rev. 20.

Further, the denial of a literal millennial reign is heretical because it violates the very prayer Christ taught that believers are to pray: "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in heaven." The kingdom has not come and is NOT of this word (this present social political order) as Christ stated, nor is the will of God done ON EARTH as it is in heaven in this age of grace. It is and will be fulfilled, just as the Savior came as a suffering servant, He will return as King of Kings.

In short, Escological teaching that attempts to refute a literal millennium of 1000 years in which Christ and believers rule the world, is heretical.


OR and others who deny the millennial reign and literal return of Christ to establish physical rule over the earth, and uniting the physical and spiritual Israel are espousing a heretical view that can only be supported by NOT taking a literal reading of the Scriptures - which is opposite of what the covenant holders trump out as being known. In doing so they violate that which is taking a literal as much as possible the Scriptures and only relegating that which is obvious as metaphor or simile.

>>>>>>

See BB folks, OR's original OP of of the use of the word, heretic, can be applied right back at him, and others who support that view.

A post such as this can be just as inquisitorially read and stated in just as inflaming a rhetoric with a desire for the same results.

OR REALLY didn't want true discussion, or he would have at least been accommodating in his OP in order to not proclaim certain Scriptural judgment upon those who do for Scriptural reasons not agree with him.

Unfortunately, that was not OR's intent - he did not desire discussion. He was accusatory, and desired to shut down discussion. Later, in the thread, he blamed the inflamed retorts as examples of how dispensation thinking folks revert to name calling and demeaning to support their view.

This further distorts the truth of the responses to the thread, and just as this post illustrates, he had no real intent of bringing edification but to proclaim some self righteous assumption that only his thinking was acceptable.

 

[agedman]

Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:​

Did I read that some consider this wall a wall that separated gentiles and Israel?

It appears that the Apostle Paul did!

That WAS NOT what Paul did!

Paul is NOT stating that the wall was a partition between Israel and the gentiles, but the wall was the "LAW OF COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES."

But your scheme will refuse to acknowledge this clear statement of Paul, just as it does the clear statement of John in Rev. 20.

 

[kyredneck]

...All who hold pure covenant thinking that excludes a literal millennial reign on this earth for 1000 years, are in huge violation of John's writings concerning Rev. 20 where John is very specific as to an actual physical return, rule of this earth, the time, the purpose, the extent, the end, and the results. They violate the words of John in Rev. 21 by placing the judgment of the world out of place with the physical return of Christ - as the angels told the disciples (apostles) that He "In like manner" (physically) would return.......

Pinpoint please where in Revelation the return of Christ occurs.

And while you're at it, show where Christ promised a 'millenial kingdom'.

 

[AresMan]

Just to be clear, I never even addressed the millennium in my posts on this thread.

 

[OldRegular]

In fairness and truth for this post: I am a calvinist/modified covenant/dispensation thinker.

Unique!

In that, I find the Doctrines of Grace wonderfully etched throughout the Scriptures.

I agree!

A view of an actual millennial reign of Christ and believers on this earth as a significant part of prophetic understanding in which a physical Israel is restored and returned to God by God removing the blinding and implanting specifically in the hearts of the Israeli acknowledgement of the truth of Christ, is also part of my own view.

In taking the Scriptures as literal as possible (Daniel, Ezekial,the Gospels, writings of Paul and John...), that time (millennium) is the most significant merge that will ever taken place; Believers of all ages are ruling with Christ; therefore there is a world wide Spiritual and Physical Israel that controls the total planet for a 1000 years, just as the antichrist has and will attempt(ed) and failed throughout the centuries.

All who hold pure covenant thinking that excludes a literal millennial reign on this earth for 1000 years, are in huge violation of John's writings concerning Rev. 20 where John is very specific as to an actual physical return, rule of this earth, the time, the purpose, the extent, the end, and the results.

You simply don't understand Revelation 20.

They violate the words of John in Rev. 21 by placing the judgment of the world out of place with the physical return of Christ - as the angels told the disciples (apostles) that He "In like manner" (physically) would return.

The judgment has already taken place in Revelation 21 which speaks of, well you figure:

Revelation 21:1-8
1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Such teaching and writing (using OR language) are heretical; attempts of "spiritualizing" that wonderful time to the current age of Grace for at least two reasons. First, it violates what this current church age structure is intended in the Scriptures. Second, it is unscriptural because it violates the prophetic words and the creation of Ezekiel's temple vision (measurements that are not applicable to any Israeli temple of the past, and not applicable to the new heaven and earth). Only a pure literal reading of the last 9 chapters of Ezekiel is appropriate, for there is not one clue given that it is to be "spiritualized" into something else - the same with reading of Rev. 20.

So animal sacrifices are to be reinstated? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is of no effect. That is heretical agedman!

You are spiritualizing Revelation 20:4-6. You have disembodied souls of tribulation saints reigning on earth. I at least understand enough to know what the First Resurrection is.

Further, the denial of a literal millennial reign is heretical because it violates the very prayer Christ taught that believers are to pray: "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in heaven." The kingdom has not come and is NOT of this word (this present social political order) as Christ stated, nor is the will of God done ON EARTH as it is in heaven in this age of grace. It is and will be fulfilled, just as the Savior came as a suffering servant, He will return as King of Kings.

In short, Escological teaching that attempts to refute a literal millennium of 1000 years in which Christ and believers rule the world, is heretical.

Do you have any idea what Revelation 21, 22 are picturing, agedman You have territory and the rule of God. That is the Kingdom of God.

OR and others who deny the millennial reign and literal return of Christ to establish physical rule over the earth, and uniting the physical and spiritual Israel are espousing a heretical view that can only be supported by NOT taking a literal reading of the Scriptures - which is opposite of what the covenant holders trump out as being known. In doing so they violate that which is taking a literal as much as possible the Scriptures and only relegating that which is obvious as metaphor or simile.

You mistakenly say that I deny the millennial reign. We are in it right now. I showed that in earlier discussion of Revelation 20. Furthermore, I have always affirmed the visible return of Jesus Christ. So you see, agedman, you should get your facts straight before making baseless accusations.


>>>>>>

See BB folks, OR's original OP of of the use of the word, heretic, can be applied right back at him, and others who support that view.

Just shows that heresy, like beauty, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

A post such as this can be just as inquisitorially read and stated in just as inflaming a rhetoric with a desire for the same results.

OR REALLY didn't want true discussion, or he would have at least been accommodating in his OP in order to not proclaim certain Scriptural judgment upon those who do for Scriptural reasons not agree with him.

agedman, I have repeatedly tried to get you to give your understanding of the following Scripture since you insist on literal interpretation of Scripture. Please do so now to justify your false remarks above.

The following request is from the Revelation 19 & 20 thread, post # 30! I eagerly await your willingness to enter into debate.

Do you believe the following Scripture is to be understood as literal?

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Incidentally agedman I notice you have not responded to an earlier request [shown below] dealing with interpretation. Do you want to try for two?

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Is John factual, your poor choice of words not mine, in John 6: 50-56? Or is factual in the eye of the beholder!

50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Have you eaten the flesh and drunk the blood of Jesus Christ yet, agedman?

Unfortunately, that was not OR's intent - he did not desire discussion. He was accusatory, and desired to shut down discussion. Later, in the thread, he blamed the inflamed retorts as examples of how dispensation thinking folks revert to name calling and demeaning to support their view.

This further distorts the truth of the responses to the thread, and just as this post illustrates, he had no real intent of bringing edification but to proclaim some self righteous assumption that only his thinking was acceptable.

Sadly, agedman, all your remarks justify the accusation I made regarding the early respondents on the thread The Parenthesis Church. As I recall only those early threads by InTheLight made any attempt to discuss the OP. The best "pastor mandym" could do was call me a jerk.

You have addressed nothing in this thread "The Parenthesis Church" but make some accusation of heresy based on my understanding of Revelation 20.

 

[kyredneck]

Just to be clear, I never even addressed the millennium in my posts on this thread.

Me neither, but he's accusing some of violating the scriptures concerning it.

 

[OldRegular]

That WAS NOT what Paul did!

Paul is NOT stating that the wall was a partition between Israel and the gentiles, but the wall was the "LAW OF COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES."

But your scheme will refuse to acknowledge this clear statement of Paul, just as it does the clear statement of John in Rev. 20.

Paul said: the middle wall of partition between us.

Are you really spiritualizing Scripture now, agedman?:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

There are not "two distinct peoples." The difference between "Israel" and "the church" is a difference in the mechanics of the covenant, the chronology, and the prophecy-fulfillment relationship. It is a vertical, not horizontal distinction.

Israel can be "Israel after the flesh" a reference either to the whole of geopolitical Israel, or to unregenerates in geopolitical Israel (1 Cor 10:18; Gal 4:23; Rom 11:7,14).
Israel can also refer to "true Israel"--the people to whom the promise to Abraham was made that receive the blessings of Abraham by faith in the Gospel (Gal 6:15-16). This Israel can either be the remnant of ethnic, geopolitical Israel who believed the gospel (Rom 11:1-6), or the union of them and the Gentiles "grafted in" to the same faith (Rom 11:17 c.f. Jer 11:16).

Israel and the Church are NOT paraellel, ontologically distinct entities with a distinct soteriology and distinct eternal promises. God does NOT have "two peoples." God has one people whose corporate manifestation has changed over time between the covenants.

Under the Old Covenant, God's people were identified under a geopolitical community. This communal covenant naturally had a mix of regenerates and unregenerates. God's promises not to cast away Israel was always to form, protect, and preserve a remnant--the true followers. Although national Israel was mostly Jewish genetically, Gentiles could join the covenant as proselytes.

Under the New Covenant, God's people are dispersed throughout the world. They are the faithful remnant of geopolitical Israel combined with the Gentiles who are "grafted in." They are "redeemed by thy blood out of every kindred, tongue, tribe, and nation" (Rev 5:9). They comprise only regenerates (Jer 31:31-34). One is a member of the New Covenant only "in My blood" (Luk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The definition of Israel under the New Covenant has "flowered" out from the geopolitical entity to the church of the diaspora. Those who have faith in Christ are "the children of Abraham" and are "blessed with Abraham" (Rom 9:6-8; Gal 3:7-9,14,16,22,26,29; 4:28-31; Rom 4:16-17). These passages are ridiculously clear that the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that he would be "the father of many nations" is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, there are not two peoples of God, but ONE.

There. Is. NO. Promise. From. God. Based. On. Genetics. Period.
God. Is. Not. A. Racial. Discriminator.
The. Promises. Of. God. Regard. Righteousness. NOT. Sperm.

Are you sure? as God made the Jews his chosen people based upon His election of them to be the ones the messiah would come thru! he chose an ethnic class of peoples then...

the point here is that this entire discussion hinges upon how views the prophetic word, and the eschatology of the NT!

Right now, all that you see here is true, just one peoples of God, saved under new Covenant by Yeshua as messiah...

BUT belive that the Bible teaches that Spiritual isreal ARE the jews who have received yeshua as messiah! They are in the Church, but they would be the spiritual jews, NOT gentiles...

After the rapture, the Lord will go back to dealing with national isreal and the Jewish peoples...

We do NOT spiritualize the prophetic elements of the Bible, as we do see that Jews stay Jews, not a spiritual term for gentiles, and that Jerusalem and isreal does not mean Church today!

 

[HankD]

OK, I'm bowing out. Much study is a weariness to the flesh.

Most of us have arrived at our position over a period of years of study, prayer, etc and probably won't change.

HankD

 

[thomas15]

[/B]

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:

Icon, at he OP stage of this horrable thread, the OP, a fine Christian by own standards goes the guilt by association route by equating dispies with cults.

Instead of you know taking the heathen route of saying lets compare our doctrine with the actual teaching of Scripture, you sir pile on because you think this thread is attacking the honor of the cals.

My only question is why? Why would you associate yourself with this awful thread? Why Icon, do you side with those who distort dispensational teaching in an effort to make themselves feel better about themselves?

 

[agedman]

Pinpoint please where in Revelation the return of Christ occurs.

And while you're at it, show where Christ promised a 'millenial kingdom'.

I will post three statements in REVERSE order more for the view of not from the genesis of but as consistent with the genesis of what Christ illustrated.

John's account:

Re 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.​

Paul stated it in these terms:

1Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then comes the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.​

Christ said,

Mt 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that sows the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.​

Taking all that (and other verses) in context, the "kingdom" that Christ refers is not in heaven, for there are no tares sown and grown in heaven. Rather, it is of this earth, and that promise given by Christ is further developed by Paul and by John as shown.


What is in perspective in all the accounts is BOTH a physical presence AND the Spiritual.

Taken with the rest of prophecy upon the matter, it shows that the gentiles are/were as Scriptures state "grafted into" and not separated from, and that the world shall have a literal physical/Spiritual reigning of believers as Christ sits as King of Kings.

The New heaven and New earth, do not show this reigning, the present configuration obliges that the reigning is not world wide, and there is really no indication that things get better and better until the kingdom of God is established as the old covenant believer's thought and attempted to establish in various utopian endeavors.

Of course, folks will disagree.

The point I was making is that it doesn't rise to the level of the word "heresy" being attached.

His view can be considered (using his own application thinking) just as heretical.

 

[OldRegular]

My only question is why? Why would you associate yourself with this awful thread? Why Icon, do you side with those who distort dispensational teaching in an effort to make themselves feel better about themselves?

I did not distort dispensational doctrine. I quoted dispensational leaders as did others. You may have been ignorant of this heretical teaching but ignorance is no excuse. So don't make yourself look small by making false accusations.

 

[OldRegular]

The point I was making is that it doesn't rise to the level of the word "heresy" being attached.

His view can be considered (using his own application thinking) just as heretical.

The point is you have not addressed anything in the OP. You are talking about Revelation 20 and the millennial kingdom. This thread is about the Parenthesis Church of dispensationalism. Wake up agedman!

 

[Yeshua1]

The point is you have not addressed anything in the OP. You are talking about Revelation 20 and the millennial kingdom. This thread is about the Parenthesis Church of dispensationalism. Wake up agedman!

And you esablished that All Dispensationists hold to that exact view, no difference among classic/progressive view points?

and that it is to the level of being heresy?

Its due to honestly interpreting the prophetic elements of the Bible from a plain and literal meaning, not spiritualising them all..

how come Covenant theology, and A Mil views, not been seen as being heretical?

(not saying they are!)

 

[percho]

In my opinion all those saved by the blood of Jesus Christ are a part of the Bride of Jesus Christ. And if they are not saved by the blood of Jesus Christ how are they saved?

It is 403pm where I am and I would say anyone from Adam to one second ago is either saved by the blood of the Christ or he is not saved.

 

[agedman]

Sadly, agedman, all your remarks justify the accusation I made regarding the early respondents on the thread The Parenthesis Church. As I recall only those early threads by InTheLight made any attempt to discuss the OP. The best "pastor mandym" could do was call me a jerk.

You have addressed nothing in this thread "The Parenthesis Church" but make some accusation of heresy based on my understanding of Revelation 20.

There was only ONE early respondent that took issue with your post and that was pointing out the very matter that I did.

I didn't intend to address the OP rather show how your continued use of the word heresy, heretic, ... was inflammatory, incorrect, and demeaning to fellow believers. I wasn't the first to show this problem, but your continued use of the word shows a glaring lack of insight.

You seem to think that proclaiming someone or something is the end of the argument and declaration that all who disagree with your view are bound for hell - as that is were true heretics are bound.

You in effect are condemning something that is a view of how scriptures can be considered,

That you have become soundly bound up in your view is not the problem.

That you apply as heretical anything else, is in fact a problem.

THAT was the purpose of my post, AND it is stated as such if you read the after >>>>>> part correctly.

That you don't agree does not a heretic make of me nor what I view as incorrect.

Perhaps, if you would have left such an inflammatory word out of the OP, then a great edifying discussion could be had with the members of the BB.

However, by the OP statements, then each expression of some other view that is not your own is already proclaimed by you as heretical and not worthy of anything but the highest condemnation of both the view and holders of the view. There is no reason to engage in any discussion, for you have already condemned and determined punishment in the OP.

Why don't you start the thread again?

Rather than being caustic in your opening, take a firm stand on your own view, and engage those who would disagree on terms and ground in which would edify rather than accuse and condemn.

I am busy cooking, and have only responded on this thread to show a different view is viable with the Scripture and to show the initial response to your OP as accurately stated.

 

[OldRegular]

And you esablished that All Dispensationists hold to that exact view, no difference among classic/progressive view points?

and that it is to the level of being heresy?

The OP states what it states. If you have a problem with the OP fine but refute it by Scripture!

Its due to honestly interpreting the prophetic elements of the Bible from a plain and literal meaning, not spiritualising them all..

And the pertinent Scripture are????

how come Covenant theology, and A Mil views, not been seen as being heretical?

(not saying they are!)

agedman has called me a heretic for believing that Jesus Christ is currently reigning at the right hand of the Father and I presented Scripture to prove it. Yet he still insists that I am a heretic. Fine! But now refute the OP with Scripture.

 

[thomas15]

I did not distort dispensational doctrine. I quoted dispensational leaders as did others. You may have been ignorant of this heretical teaching but ignorance is no excuse. So don't make yourself look small by making false accusations.

Oh, yes, right. I forgot that the best source of biblical doctrine is from some dude on the internets.

 

[OldRegular]

There was only ONE early respondent that took issue with your post and that was pointing out the very matter that I did.

Just a few of the early comments on the OP, mostly slanderous.

Well, if this is how you are defining "Dispensationalism" then, you already win, as no one agrees with the contentions about dispensationalism that you present. This will be a short thread. No one claims what you are suggesting "dispensationalism" entails or believes. You may not have "techincally" mis-represented...but you have supplied certain interpretations or assumptions with your OP which no one will defend. I think no one is a "dispensationalist" as you are defining it.

This is why "straw-man" arguments are pointless and ineffective....no one will debate with you the idea that what you have expressed "dispensationalism" to be is true. Have fun arguing with yourself. :wavey:

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!:thumbsup:

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.

Yes, you have indeed:



Personally, having already recognized your having quoted them devoid of context, I already (in my extensive, if not infinite) foreknowledge....supplied the qualifier:



You are now hoping someone will defend the positions you ascribe to "dispensationalists". There will be no comers....again...have fun debating with yourself...:sleep:

Mandym is merely explaining that the same tactic is used by too many Cals on this board as well. He is also correct....Destroy invented Theologies all you want...We await reasoned debate.

You are going to debate with yourself OR....watch.......:sleep:

You do not understand what a "straw-man" is Icon.....I promise you, as I have OR...you guys will have odious and obnoxious amounts of fun trashing positions no one will defend....while you preach to choirs...I await anyone to defend the position of "dispensationalism" as OR has described it...you will have no comers...Enjoy your orgy of falsification....no one cares.

Caustic debate tactics like this are the norm for cals.

I am both rightly and wrongly accused of many things..."dancing" around an issue is NEVER one of them. I make rather bald assertions OR...I don't "dance" around anything...you are either confused or lying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)



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



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

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.

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?

The first response that really addresses the OP and defends it!

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?