OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I made the argument in the OP. All I have gotten from dispensationalists in response is slander; but that is what I expected based on past experience!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Parenthesis Church
- Thread starter OldRegular
- Start date
- Status
I made the argument in the OP. All I have gotten from dispensationalists in response is slander; but that is what I expected based on past experience!
It is probably best to remember that these guys cannot function outside of an exact systematic theological understanding. Especially when they need strawmen to create a false, op broad brush as many people as they can, and then attempt to rudely beat them over the head with their snide arrogant attitudes. Apparently their favorite tv program is not on tonight.
Here is another example of you falsely accusing believers, in a snide arrogant way, when you offer nothing of value. Your posting is pathetic.
Stop accusing everyone, until maybe you could at least post a verse on the topic. You are projecting your own thoughts on everyone else.
The op and all of your subsequent posts fit every word I said. You both refuse to listen to reason. You intentionally re-characterize others views you disagree with in a belittling, snide, arrogant, and incorrect way. You give debate a bad name. Shame on you both.
You have yet to post anything of substance at all. You claim to be a PASTOR.I see no evidence of that at all.
I have not seen you post anything on any thread that is helpful to anyone.
When people are as mean spirited and rude as you two are, Pastors often admonish them. You two need to behave yourselves.
You called OR.....a jerk????
This does not seem very pastoral... not quite feeling the love here:thumbs::thumbs:
Where is OR being rude as you are here????
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't you think we've been keeping OR and Icon in the dark long enough? Games up now guys: We should go ahead and forward them the memo....Truth is, we haven't been "Parentheses-Church" adherents for a while....we are now the "Bracket-People" {} <----- and have been for some years. We didn't forward you guys the memo. This is why none of us are defending the Parentheses doctrine. We are all staunch adherents of the Bracket movement.
Alas, gone are the Halcyon days of Hal Lindsey and Late Great Planet Earth
We now follow the teachings of Al Dintsey's new book: Early Miserable Planet Pluto
I just think it's time to come clean about what we REALLY believe now. Not to worry...We will staunchly defend "Bracketism". This is why at page 7, no one has bothered to debate the OP. We don't follow that anymore. If you want to begin a thread where someone will actually defend the positions you want them to defend: Start one on the {} Bracket-Church.
Alas, gone are the Halcyon days of Hal Lindsey and Late Great Planet Earth
We now follow the teachings of Al Dintsey's new book: Early Miserable Planet Pluto
I just think it's time to come clean about what we REALLY believe now. Not to worry...We will staunchly defend "Bracketism". This is why at page 7, no one has bothered to debate the OP. We don't follow that anymore. If you want to begin a thread where someone will actually defend the positions you want them to defend: Start one on the {} Bracket-Church.
Last edited by a moderator:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
I am not a Calvinist or a dispensationalist.
The idea of a parenthesis church as stated by OldRegular is a foundational teaching of dispensationalism. I have had run-ins with OR, but that does not prevent me from acknowledging that he has posted factually concerning dispensationalism.
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
As I stated earlier, this is one area of theology that I have not studied about that much. I do know enough to realize however, that Calvinism vs free will and covenant vs disp. are not always on the same side.
It seems lots of posters assume that covenant theology and Calvinism are always on the same side and vise versa. That is not true.
It seems lots of posters assume that covenant theology and Calvinism are always on the same side and vise versa. That is not true.
OK, you say that Zion was a fortress. Then Zion became synonymous with the city of Jerusalem. Then the whole of Judah, and finally the people of Israel.
And here is where the disconnect begins. You have not shown (Biblically) that Zion becomes the term for Christians to use of God's spiritual kingdom. I'm not seeing that in those two verses.
Then you say:
And here is where the argument really starts to be tenuous. So far I've been dutifully connecting the dots--no matter how far flung they've been presented--and I'm getting lost. Watch...
OK, got it.
It does? That's news to me.
Then:
A series of statements that are to be taken as being true with no supporting evidence.
And here is where the disconnect begins. You have not shown (Biblically) that Zion becomes the term for Christians to use of God's spiritual kingdom. I'm not seeing that in those two verses.
Then you say:
And here is where the argument really starts to be tenuous. So far I've been dutifully connecting the dots--no matter how far flung they've been presented--and I'm getting lost. Watch...
OK, got it.
It does? That's news to me.
Then:
A series of statements that are to be taken as being true with no supporting evidence.
Granted, many who adhere to "dispensationalism" today are much less radical than the classical dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield.
Most "dispensationalists" today are "progressive" dispensationalists that allow for the distinction between Israel and the Church to be more cosmetic and simply chronological rather than soteriological. Dispensationalism, if defined by those who originally systematized it, is very much like described in the OP.
The ones with which I have to deal regularly make Darby and Scofield look like covenant theologians. They are hyperdispensationalists who are hardcore that salvation was by works and law-keeping with no eternal security outside the "mystery" church that began with Paul's conversion.
They believe that all the other apostles were "kingdom" saints who had to "endure to the end" to be saved.
They will argue along with the Church of Christ and other cults that John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21 teach "baptismal regeneration," but were not directed to "the Body of Christ" to which we are members.
They believe that water baptism has nothing to do with the Body of Christ, and should not be practiced. To do so is to "confuse" and "mix" the "dispensations."
They are hardcore Open Theists whose faith in God as good necessitates finding as many passages of Scripture to indicate God's prophecy not being 100% true if it involves what people would do.
They take a view of soteriology for the Body of Christ much like the Grace Evangelical Society such that man always has libertarian free will and that simply mental assent to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is what is necessary for salvation, and that eternal security (only for the Body of Christ) can be mutually exclusive from any kind of "evidence" of faith.
They would agree with the Preterists that when Jesus said "This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled" (Mat 24:34), that He was talking about His second coming and the end of all things AND that "this generation" meant the disciples actually standing there. This is one of the places where they would argue that what Jesus said (being "true" at the time), did not actually happen at all as He said, because when "Israel" "rejected" the Messiah with His second-chance offer of "the kingdom" with the "church of Israel" from Pentecost to the stoning of Stephen, God "changed His mind" and introduced His "mystery" dispensation to Paul (and there was the real possibility that this "dispensation of grace" would never have occurred).
They will argue until they are blue in the face that Romans 4 and James 2 are "a direct contradiction UNLESS you understand the Bible 'dispensationally.'"
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Getting Back to the OP
Getting back to the OP:
Millennial Series: Part 19: Premillennialism and the Church
Study By: John F. Walvoord
Article contributed by www.walvoord.com
http://bible.org/seriespage/millennial-series-part-19-premillennialism-and-church
Emphasis Mine.
The Church Age as a Parenthesis
One of the important questions raised by the amillenarians is whether the present age is predicted in the Old Testament. This they confidently affirm and find the kingdom promises fulfilled in the present church age. Premillenarians have not always given a clear answer to the amillennial position. While dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament, some premillenarians have tended to strike a compromise interpretation in which part of the Old Testament predictions are fulfilled now and part in the future. In some cases they have conceded so much to the amillenarians that for all practical purposes they have surrendered premillennialism as well. It is the purpose of the present investigation to show the reasonableness and Scriptural support of the parenthesis concept.
snip
The ultimate proof of the teaching that the present age is a parenthesis is in the positive revelation concerning the church as the body of Christ, the study of which will be undertaken next. The evidence for a parenthesis in the present age interrupting God’s predicted program for Jew and Gentile as revealed in the Old Testament is extensive, however. The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine. The kingdom predictions of the Old Testament do not conform to the pattern of this present age. Amillenarians from Augustine down to the present make no pretense of interpreting these prophecies in the same literal way as premillenarians. Those among the premillennial group who see clearly the issues involved would do well to divorce themselves from the amillennial method in dealing with the prophetic word, and interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament in relation to the millennium rather than the present age.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1954)
Getting back to the OP:
Millennial Series: Part 19: Premillennialism and the Church
Study By: John F. Walvoord
Article contributed by www.walvoord.com
http://bible.org/seriespage/millennial-series-part-19-premillennialism-and-church
Emphasis Mine.
The Church Age as a Parenthesis
One of the important questions raised by the amillenarians is whether the present age is predicted in the Old Testament. This they confidently affirm and find the kingdom promises fulfilled in the present church age. Premillenarians have not always given a clear answer to the amillennial position. While dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament, some premillenarians have tended to strike a compromise interpretation in which part of the Old Testament predictions are fulfilled now and part in the future. In some cases they have conceded so much to the amillenarians that for all practical purposes they have surrendered premillennialism as well. It is the purpose of the present investigation to show the reasonableness and Scriptural support of the parenthesis concept.
snip
The ultimate proof of the teaching that the present age is a parenthesis is in the positive revelation concerning the church as the body of Christ, the study of which will be undertaken next. The evidence for a parenthesis in the present age interrupting God’s predicted program for Jew and Gentile as revealed in the Old Testament is extensive, however. The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine. The kingdom predictions of the Old Testament do not conform to the pattern of this present age. Amillenarians from Augustine down to the present make no pretense of interpreting these prophecies in the same literal way as premillenarians. Those among the premillennial group who see clearly the issues involved would do well to divorce themselves from the amillennial method in dealing with the prophetic word, and interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament in relation to the millennium rather than the present age.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the January-March Number, 1954)
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Ernest Reisinger on Dispensationalism
The following is by the late Ernest Reisinger,of Founders Ministries, a reformed dispensationalist. Reisinger gives a brief autobiography showing his life as a dispensationalist.
Emphasis Mine!
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj08/article1.html
The following is by the late Ernest Reisinger,of Founders Ministries, a reformed dispensationalist. Reisinger gives a brief autobiography showing his life as a dispensationalist.
In this article I wish to address some of the doctrinal issues which are involved in Dispensationalism.
Perhaps a brief autobiographical background may be helpful. I am very grateful for all the helpful things that I have learned on my way to the Celestial City. I am indebted to many teachers who taught me to revere the Holy Scriptures. The formative years of my spiritual development were spent under the ministries of godly men who were committed to Dispensationalism. It was through them that I was taught the importance of a personal devotional life. I was taught to be missionary minded. I was taught to be a personal witness for Christ. I was taught five fundamental truths: (1) the inspiration and infallibility of the scriptures; (2) the virgin birth of Christ; (3) the miracles of Christ; (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ; (5) the bodily resurrection of Christ.
One of the first books that had a profound effect on my methods of evangelism was True Evangelism, by Lewis Sperry Chafer. I can still recommend it as being very helpful.
I did not find my way out of Dispensationalism easily. It took time and tears and cost me fellowship with some genuine, committed Christian friends. Some of them thought that I was departing from the faith or going liberal. The inward heart struggle to embrace the historic Christian faith involved not only intellectual conflict but also emotional struggle. The many changes were not made in haste, anger, passion, or ecstasy. It did not happen on a weekend. I spent the first ten years of my Christian life immersed in Dispensationalism. I wore out three Scofield Bibles and the fourth was falling apart. I heard Lewis Sperry Chafer in person. The only systematic theology I studied was Dr. Chafer's eight-volume set.
My theological change resulted from a serious, exhaustive search to know three things: What saith the scriptures; what do they mean; and how do I apply them to my belief and practice?
I pray that this little history of my own journey will be kept in mind as I attempt the rather difficult task of dealing with principles of Dispensationalism without being disrespectful or unchristian to the many genuine Christians who sincerely hold this view that I now consider erroneous, unbiblical, dangerous and outside the historic stream of Christianity.
Although I strongly differ from my dispensational brethren in their interpretation of scripture, I would defend their right to adhere to their view. I do not wish to separate from their fellowship. However, I strongly believe Dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith of our fathers. No Christian wishes to be argumentative, but it is impossible to address this controversial issue without being polemic and somewhat censorious of the system. I must be very candid in saying that I cannot approach this contemporary issue in an unbiased manner.
This unbiblical and unhistorical theology has spawned many serious errors, and we are now reaping some of its fruit--especially in the areas of evangelism and teachings on the Christian life (justification and sanctification).
***************************************************
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?
Perhaps a brief autobiographical background may be helpful. I am very grateful for all the helpful things that I have learned on my way to the Celestial City. I am indebted to many teachers who taught me to revere the Holy Scriptures. The formative years of my spiritual development were spent under the ministries of godly men who were committed to Dispensationalism. It was through them that I was taught the importance of a personal devotional life. I was taught to be missionary minded. I was taught to be a personal witness for Christ. I was taught five fundamental truths: (1) the inspiration and infallibility of the scriptures; (2) the virgin birth of Christ; (3) the miracles of Christ; (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ; (5) the bodily resurrection of Christ.
One of the first books that had a profound effect on my methods of evangelism was True Evangelism, by Lewis Sperry Chafer. I can still recommend it as being very helpful.
I did not find my way out of Dispensationalism easily. It took time and tears and cost me fellowship with some genuine, committed Christian friends. Some of them thought that I was departing from the faith or going liberal. The inward heart struggle to embrace the historic Christian faith involved not only intellectual conflict but also emotional struggle. The many changes were not made in haste, anger, passion, or ecstasy. It did not happen on a weekend. I spent the first ten years of my Christian life immersed in Dispensationalism. I wore out three Scofield Bibles and the fourth was falling apart. I heard Lewis Sperry Chafer in person. The only systematic theology I studied was Dr. Chafer's eight-volume set.
My theological change resulted from a serious, exhaustive search to know three things: What saith the scriptures; what do they mean; and how do I apply them to my belief and practice?
I pray that this little history of my own journey will be kept in mind as I attempt the rather difficult task of dealing with principles of Dispensationalism without being disrespectful or unchristian to the many genuine Christians who sincerely hold this view that I now consider erroneous, unbiblical, dangerous and outside the historic stream of Christianity.
Although I strongly differ from my dispensational brethren in their interpretation of scripture, I would defend their right to adhere to their view. I do not wish to separate from their fellowship. However, I strongly believe Dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith of our fathers. No Christian wishes to be argumentative, but it is impossible to address this controversial issue without being polemic and somewhat censorious of the system. I must be very candid in saying that I cannot approach this contemporary issue in an unbiased manner.
This unbiblical and unhistorical theology has spawned many serious errors, and we are now reaping some of its fruit--especially in the areas of evangelism and teachings on the Christian life (justification and sanctification).
***************************************************
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?
Emphasis Mine!
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj08/article1.html
ITL
Hello....Slow down a bit...keep it simple:thumbs:
In the OT.....everything was physical,earthly, and we are told......a shadow of the heavenly reality.
Are we agreed here??? Hebrew Israel had a temporal set up...until Jesus brings in the reality...
Do make it harder than it is...take a minute to read Hebrews 8,9, 10.
This is what the writer is explaining to us......then he sums it up ...hebrews 12:18-24
18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more:
20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:
ITL....simply put----Jesus takes the earthly Zion and Jerusalem.....the Holy City on earth, and shows that the reign and throne is from the heavenly Zion and Jerusalem.
There is no longer an earthly holy place....since the abomination of desolation took place....
see part 2 next post---
Last edited by a moderator:
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
ITL... there is no trick, or allergorizing, this is a plain reading.....do you see it?
Jesus... the King ...came to take Zion......mt 21, jn 12, the triumphal entry! a greater than David.
Most wanted an earthly King, earthly rule!
He offered the reign and rule from heaven,
ITL... there is no trick, or allergorizing, this is a plain reading.....do you see it?
Jesus... the King ...came to take Zion......mt 21, jn 12, the triumphal entry! a greater than David.
Most wanted an earthly King, earthly rule!
He offered the reign and rule from heaven,
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been a "dispensationalist" all my life...I have never even run across a creature like you describe here...Perhaps where I am from things are radically different. Maybe it is the type you describe here which makes some people appear to utterly cringe in horror at the very term "dispensationalist". Which always seemed rather humorous to me. This "hyper-dispensationalism" sounds utterly insane. Is it somewhat Geographic do you think? I think this milder form is all I have ever really been exposed to. You are dealing with some crazy creatures indeed.
I have been a "dispensationalist" all my life...I have never even run across a creature like you describe here...Perhaps where I am from things are radically different. Maybe it is the type you describe here which makes some people appear to utterly cringe in horror at the very term "dispensationalist". Which always seemed rather humorous to me. This "hyper-dispensationalism" sounds utterly insane. Is it somewhat Geographic do you think? I think this milder form is all I have ever really been exposed to. You are dealing with some crazy creatures indeed.
Well we agree on that. Even though I'm not as smart as you.
What Ares described is a totally confused individual. None of that stuff is biblical.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Interesting Post AresMan. In the OP I was speaking of what some call classic dispensationalism. I believe I indicated in one response that some dispensationalists are moving away from classic dispensationalism to progressive dispensationalism, which seems to approach covenant premillennialism particularly in regard to the Church.
There are a couple of hyper-dispensationalists on this Forum. None posting presently that I know of but that is a terrible doctrine. Ryrie has nothing good to say about them.
- Status