The Parenthesis Church

[OldRegular]

Dispensational doctrine makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

Much of Dispensational doctrine is the invention of John Nelson Darby of Plymouth England in the early 19th Century, a century when many “Christian” Cults were started: Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Science are the most notable.

Dispensationalism denies that the Church is included in prophecy. Rather, the claim is made that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. The Church is often referred to as the ‘mystery parenthesis’ form of the Kingdom; mystery in that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Church and parenthesis in that 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.

In the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus God reveals to us His program for the Church of Jesus Christ.

11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
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:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood. Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Jews and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

Dispensational doctrine indeed makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

 

[kyredneck]

Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood.....

Good articulation, exactly. And it is sad. It's actually the 'coming full circle back around' to the original very first heresy of the Church. Dispensationalism is a Judaizing 'other gospel'.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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:

 

[kyredneck]

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:

So which denomination of dispensationalism do you adhere to?

 

[mandym]

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.

 

[kyredneck]

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.

Anything like this one?:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1868249&highlight=CUFI#post1868249

Are you one of these warmongers?

 

[OldRegular]

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:

I have presented a quote from the leading dispensational "theologian" Chaver with a second by Ryrie. If you don't like those I can find more that peddle the same nonsense.

 

[kyredneck]

I have presented a quote from the leading dispensational "theologian" Chaver with a second by Ryrie. If you don't like those I can find more that peddle the same nonsense.

I doubt he even knows what 'flavor' of the heresy he prefers OR.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

This is not a thread on Calvinism, it is a thread about the Dispensational doctrine of the Church. There are other threads where you can spew your hatred of Calvinism!

 

[mandym]

This is not a thread on Calvinism, it is a thread about the Dispensational doctrine of the Church. There are other threads where you can spew your hatred of Calvinism!

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I have presented a quote from the leading dispensational "theologian" Chaver with a second by Ryrie. If you don't like those I can find more that peddle the same nonsense.

Yes, you have indeed:

presented a quote from the leading dispensational "theologian" Chaver with a second by Ryrie.

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

You may not have "techincally" mis-represented...but you have supplied certain interpretations or assumptions with your OP which no one will defend.

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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

 

[kyredneck]

[edited for offensiveness]

 

[Iconoclast]

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:

There is no strawman, that is exactly the position as taught.

 

[OldRegular]

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:

Dispensationalists routinely defend that which is not defendable. And the idea of a parenthesis Church cannot be defended. So it is understandable that you want to dance around the issue.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There is no strawman, that is exactly the position as taught.

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Told you OR, he doesn't know. Maybe if he consulted his wonderful wife Lilly.....

You can think of me...whatever you want....my beloved wife is not to be dragged out and insulted....This is trash KY...leave her out of it. She does not engage in debates such as this one. You may say to ME what you will, do not trash, denigrate or insult her..That is lower than low.

 

[Yeshua1]

Dispensational doctrine makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

Much of Dispensational doctrine is the invention of John Nelson Darby of Plymouth England in the early 19th Century, a century when many “Christian” Cults were started: Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Science are the most notable.

Dispensationalism denies that the Church is included in prophecy. Rather, the claim is made that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. The Church is often referred to as the ‘mystery parenthesis’ form of the Kingdom; mystery in that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Church and parenthesis in that 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.

In the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus God reveals to us His program for the Church of Jesus Christ.

11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
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:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood. Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Jews and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

Dispensational doctrine indeed makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

problem is that you postulate an "either/or!" Either God has a seperate Covenant with the Jews, or he has JUST jews being part of the new Covenant with gentiles!

A real dispy like myself would say that right now there is but one body on earth saved by God, Church. BOTh Jews/gentiles saved by faith in jesus, BUT that there is also a promise made to Isreal by God that he will in the end days deal again with national isreal, and when messiah comes again, at that time all isreal livng shall be saved ina restored isreal, with yeshua reigning over them!

So in the Church age, ther eis indeed a single people of god, but coming a time when church is gone, and national isreal shall know God once again!

See Ezekiel 38-39...

We just don't spiritualise the prophetic word and make all refernces to jews/isreal mean church/christian!

 

[mandym]

Dispensationalists routinely defend that which is not defendable. And the idea of a parenthesis Church cannot be defended. So it is understandable that you want to dance around the issue.

Caustic debate tactics like this are the norm for cals.

 

[kyredneck]

You can think of me...whatever you want....my beloved wife is not to be dragged out and insulted....This is trash KY...leave her out of it. She does not engage in debates such as this one. You may say to ME what you will, do not trash, denigrate or insult her..That is lower than low.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: ROFG!!!