-
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!
What Dispensationalism Provides?
- Thread starter BibleTalk
- Start date
- Status
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Bob Farnaby said:
Ditto from my end.
Is it your contention that there are dead bodies and ashes in the New Jerusalem? I would not think there would be. Furthermore, all these locations are physical locations. You can go and look at them. That marks the location as something on this earth, not the New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven. As for not being destroyed, the context is clearly falling under the ravishes of war from the curse of the Lord for disobedience. That will never happen again when this is rebuilt.canadyjd said:
Is that clear? That's not what James says. He says it “agrees” with, which means simply that everything that is happening with the incoming of the Gentiles does not contradict the promises. That was the concern in Acts 15. All these Gentiles are getting saved and messing up our promises. And James corrects that faulty theology, not by saying that the promises have changed, but by saying that the promises are still good.
Notice some key features.
First, James is addressing the issue of whether Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law, to proselytize to the Jewish faith in order to be saved. Nothing in Amos, at face value, addresses this issue in Acts 15. James makes several changes that distinguish the events Amos has in view with the events in the early church.
“In that day” becomes “After these things” – This refers to the period after God’s present activity of calling the Gentiles to salvation.
He adds “I will return” to show that Amos’ prophecy would not be fulfilled until after Christ returned.
He follows the LXX which has a slightly different translation. The LXX translates “possess” (yireshu) as “seek” (yidreshu); and Edom (edom) as man (adam). (The transliteration is not exactly perfect.)
1. James is showing that God was calling Gentiles to salvation without their first becoming Jews (Acts 15:14). He cites Amos for support that such activity is not in contradiction to God’s prophecies in the OT. What God was presently doing in the church was exactly what he had promised to do in the Kingdom at the return of Christ and the resurrection of the Davidic throne.
2. James does not say that Amos’ words were being “fulfilled,” but that the “words of the prophets were in agreement.”
Furthermore, Amos 9:11-15 speaks of the rebuilding of ruined cities, and people living in them. That makes no sense in the church. We are not living in ruined cities that have been rebuilt. We don’t have the great outpouring of God’s blessing on crops that were ruined as a part of the Palestinian covenant. This prophecy only makes sense in a millennial context.
This is both true and false. The church is made up of Jew and Gentile who have a common future in Christ. But Israel as a nature has a separate future in Christ.
Because the context of the passage is the destruction that comes from a curse on the nation for disobedience.
Again, I think these passages are insurmountable without doing great damage to the text. Your position requires us to think that there are landmarks, dead bodies, and ashes in the New Jerusalem. It requires us to think that “rebuilding cities and living in them,” really means something entirely different.
Last edited by a moderator:
For my end, the attempts at answers that I have read in these recent threads convince me that you guys have no answer to dispensationalism that doesn't appeal to some sort of special pleading. You guys, for all your efforts, have once again driven me back to the text and have convinced me more and more that dispensationalism is the only viable position. Every time I go to the text itself, I come away more convinced of the basics of dispensationalism.Bob Farnaby said:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
J.D. said:
Yes. the 144,000 in Revelation 7 are Messianic Jews from the Time of the Gentiles (Gentile Age, Church Age, Age of Grace)
The church obviously. There are no national distinctions in the church. They are one new man in Christ.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Pastor Larry said:
Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it! :thumbs:
Ed's guide to the Baptist Smilies:
:1_grouphug: - this is the symbol of the five opinions held by 3 Baptists hugging each other
:BangHead: - this is the symbol of an individual Baptist communicating with their own Personal Doctrine
:wavey: - this is a symbol of a non-Pentecostal Baptist - note only one hand in the air at a time & at no time do the feet leave the floor
No. the promise of the land was given to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac as a nation. The church is distinct from the nation in the Bible. I think the problem here is again in the confusing of Israel and the church. The promise of the land was made to a nation, not to individuals. When you read the OT that becomes clear. No one individual Israelite could inherit the land because of their obedience. It was a national promise and a national inheritance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not believers of this age. Remember, different promises are made to different people and different groups. Believing Jews are a part of teh church, not a part of national Israel. The NT consistently clarifies that the church has no national recognition in it. Believing Jews of this age are part of the church. The land promises were made to Israel as a nation.
Believing Jews in the MK will receive the land just as God promised the nation. But it is predicated on their reception of the Messiah.
I think you are failing to note biblical distinctions. The same promises are not made to everyone.
Maybe I am missing something but I do not get that from Abram's call in Genesis 12.Pastor Larry said:
Genesis 12:1-3, "Now the Lord said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
In the MT in that passage is one word which translates "for you." It is when God speaks to Abram.
As you probably know, the AC is not based solely on Gen 12. It is in Gen 13, 15, and 17, as well as repeated throughout the OT. There we find that the land is given to Abraham's descendants.gb93433 said:
I am not following you here.
I do agree, but the call began with Abram personally. Certainly Abram could not have done it alone.Pastor Larry said:
In the Hebrew text is one word that is not translated in English which denotes that the promise and benefit was "for him." If it were translated it would sound wooden.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I thought dispensationalism took passages literally. The passage from Jeremiah says that the rebuilt Jerusalem will never again suffer destruction; not ever!Pastor Larry said:
It doesn't say, Jerusalem will not suffer destruction because of war. It doesn't say, Jerusalem will not be destroyed because of disobedience.
The passage says the rebuilt Jerusalem will never again suffer destruction.
Either you believe that literally, or you are reading something into the text that isn't there.
If God destroys Jerusalem after He rebuilds it for the Jewish Nation, then God is not keeping His literal promise to never allow Jerusalem to suffer destruction again.
peace to you
raying:Actually dispensationalism takes passage normally, how the language would normally be used. Furthermore, I have previously discussed the meaning of the world 'olam elsewhere, and encourage you to look it up.
Not unless you read the context and understood the threat of destruction in OT terms.
Not at all. Again, go to the OT and read the threats of destruction and see what they are about. That should suffice to answer the question.
As dispensationalists have always contended, you have to take Scripture in its context. You can't just lift out a word or passage and ignore the historical and literary context.
The problem I have with dispensationalism among a number of other things is the fact that it is a systematic theology. It is a systematic theology that has changed several times since its inception. Not one systematic theology is without flaws. The document without flaws is scripture. Too often dispensationalists filter their interpretation of scripture through what they understand about dispensational theology. Over the years dispensational theology has changed while the Bible has not.JDale said:
I find it disturbing that God's progressive revelation is studied with a progressive theology in mind called progressive dispensationalism. Is that not a constantly changing systematic theology. That kind of theology is dangerous and much like Catholicism has evolved over the years to something much different than where it started.
Another thing that disturbs me is how many dispensationalists believe we are under the dispensation of grace and that the OT is no longer valid and not necessary. When I consider that Jesus was the fulfillment [maturation] of the law and the prophets. (Much like an Oak tree would be the fulfillment of an acorn). The law was a tutor to lead us to Christ and Christ was the fulfillment of the law seems to me to be an integral part of my faith. When I study the gospels I cannot begin to understand them if I do not have a handle on the Torah.
Even Jesus proclaimed that He did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets. So why should we?
Mt. 5:17, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status