Featured The Parenthesis Church

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

Pinpoint please where in Revelation the return of Christ occurs.

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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!)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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