Why does Dispensationalism teach...

[DeafPosttrib]

Pastor Larry,

Yes I have. We have been through the evidence many times. If you are truly interested, then you can study it from the numerous authors who have defend it.

Please verses.........


I don't care what the commentators, authors like Jack Van Impe, Dwight Pentacost, Tim LaHaye, C.I. Scofield, Charles Larkin, Thomas Ice, Hal Lindsey, etc... saying. STICKY on God's Word!!!

Because SCripture leads us to believe that.

Please verses.......

Romans 11:25-26 is a clear proof that Israel and the Church are distinct and that Israel's future will not happen until after the Church is complete.

Romans 11:25-26 say, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own coneits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, unti the fullness of the Gentiles be COME IN. And SO all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Notice verse 26 says, "And SO..." it does not saying, "And THEN..." Romans 11:25-26 telling us, Jews were removed from the olive tree becuse of their unbelief, BUT believing Jews are remain stay on the same tree, Gentiles are grafting added to the same tree to join with believing Jews together. SO, - the result of calvary, that both are unity together, all shall be saved! We are Israel.

Notice, Romans 11:25 does not saying rapture, and neither it saying the time of Gentiles will be completed. It tells us, now time for the Gentiles to grafted into the tree to join with believing Jews together into unity ONE tree same as one body of Christ, because of the result of calvary.

Gal. 6:15-16 tell us, either person is circumised, or not circumised, BOTH are a new creature, and many walk in Christ, we are the Israel of God.

Then show us from the OT where any OT believer followed Christ

Isn't, Christ - "I am" - Exodus 3:14???

Isn't Christ, the Lord???

Christ is distinct from God

UNBELIEVEABLE!!! You deny Christ is the deity of God?!!- "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE - John 10:30

Heb. 1:1-3 focus on Jesus Christ from the Old Testament. Remember the word, 'faith' emphasis all everywhere in the Bible from Old Testament to New Testament, shows us, it means believing without sight. During Old Testament time, the saints not yet see Christ in person, they believed in him by the faith. Same as we not yet see Christ in person, but we believe in Him by the faith. O.T. saints looked FORWARD to Christ toward Calvary. N.T. saints look BACKWARD to Christ toward Calvary. Both are same faith. Simple.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
Please verses.........

Are you more prepared to accept them now than you have been previously??? The information is available if you are truly interested. I would stay away from Van Impe, LaHaye, Scofield, Larkin, Ice, and Lindsey. Read John Walvoord, Pentecost is faily good on some things. There are many resources that shows the biblical basis for pretribulationism. I don't need to repeat them here yet again.

]Romans 11:25-26 say, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own coneits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, unti the fullness of the Gentiles be COME IN. And SO all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Notice verse 26 says, "And SO..." it does not saying, "And THEN..." Romans 11:25-26 telling us, Jews were removed from the olive tree becuse of their unbelief, BUT believing Jews are remain stay on the same tree, Gentiles are grafting added to the same tree to join with believing Jews together. SO, - the result of calvary, that both are unity together, all shall be saved! We are Israel.

That doesn't make sense though. The passage contrasts the church and Israel. It does not equate them. Continue after v. 26 and insert "Israel" everytime you see church. It should not be long until you are laughing at what you get. It simply doesn't make sense.

"So" is a reference to time. After the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved. Then the promises will be fulfilled.

Gal. 6:15-16 tell us, either person is circumised, or not circumised, BOTH are a new creature, and many walk in Christ, we are the Israel of God.

Let's look at the verse again and see what it actually says.

Galatians 6:16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Notice there are two groups of people:
1. Those who walk by this rule (i.e., the church)
2. The Israel of God.

The word "and" is a conjunction (kai) and it is differentiating: This and that. There are two groups. This verse explicitly refutes the notion that "we are Israel."

Then show us from the OT where any OT believer followed Christ

Isn't, Christ - "I am" - Exodus 3:14??? [/quote]No. I Am of Exod 3:14 is YHWH. IN the OT, Christ is the angel of YWHW. That is the preincarnate Christ.

Isn't Christ, the Lord???

Yes, but the Trinity is not an explicity teaching of the OT. The OT emphasis was on the unity of God in opposition to polytheism.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Christ is distinct from God

UNBELIEVEABLE!!! You deny Christ is the deity of God?!!- "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE - John 10:30 </font>[/QUOTE]No I didn't deny the deity of Christ. I, in fact, just stated the orthodox position on the deity of Christ for more than 1500 years since the arian controversies. Christ is distinct from the Father. That is why the two can talk to one another. They are identical in essence however. Christ is fully God, but he is distinct from God the Father.

Heb. 1:1-3 focus on Jesus Christ from the Old Testament.

I know, I just preached from this passage. I am in chapter 3 of Hebrews now.

Remember the word, 'faith' emphasis all everywhere in the Bible from Old Testament to New Testament, shows us, it means believing without sight. During Old Testament time, the saints not yet see Christ in person, they believed in him by the faith. Same as we not yet see Christ in person, but we believe in Him by the faith. O.T. saints looked FORWARD to Christ toward Calvary. N.T. saints look BACKWARD to Christ toward Calvary. Both are same faith. Simple.

Where in the OT do you see any such thing? Nobody in teh OT is ever told to believe on Christ or to "look forward to the cross." They were told to bring a sacrifice by faith. They were not even told what that sacrifice represented.

One of hte major weaknesses in much of theology, as evidenced here by you, is failure to understand progressive revelation. Remember, that while we have all 66 books, the OT people had very little. They do not konw what we know. You cannnot go back and impose our knowledge on them. They did not have that knowledge.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Pastor Larry,

Are you more prepared to accept them now than you have been previously??? The information is available if you are truly interested. I would stay away from Van Impe, LaHaye, Scofield, Larkin, Ice, and Lindsey. Read John Walvoord, Pentecost is fairly good on some things. There are many resources that shows the biblical basis for pretribulationism. I don't need to repeat them here yet again

I am curious, why you do not agree with Van Impe, LaHaye, Scofield, Larkin, Ice, and Linsdey? You saying, that you agree with John Walvoord and Dwight Pentacost? You agree with two authros over anothers. I am curious, why do you agree with Walvoord and Pentacost? Let you know I do have books of Walvoord, also, I have book - "Things to Come" by Pentacost on my library. I already read Walvoord's books, I have many things that I do not agree with him. I did read "Things to Come". I have many things that I do not agree with Pentacost. Again, I emphasis that we must sticky with God's Word! Men's teachings could be error - Colossians 2:8. Maybe you are wrong, maybe I am wrong too. Only the Holy Spirit is our teacher, guide us to understand God's Word - 1 John 2:27. Ask Holy Spirit for the guide to understand God's Word while study.

Again, you still not yet show me verse to prove that the Church will be gone , and will not be there in time. I guess you eschew my question, that mean pretribulationism is a fallacy doctrine?

"So" is a reference to time

Romans 11:26 in King James Version says, "And SO all Israel shall be saved:..." KJV does not saying, "And THEN all Israel shall be saved:..."

'So' shows the result of. Romans 11:26 tells us, the result of after Gentiles are grafted into to join with Jews unity together on the same tree by Calvary, then, all(both Jews and Gentiles) Israel shall be saved. Clearly, we as Gentiles are already grafted into the tree join with Jews after the result of Calvary, we are now part of Israel. We do not replace Israel. Church does not replace Israel. Israel means God's people are successful - Genesis 32:28. Church means God's people are successful - Matt. 16:18. Both are same.

When I show you of Gal. 6:16. You say to me, there are two groups, because of word 'and'. You doing the same as what Ed Edwards doing to me. Not what in Paul's mind. He does not saying two groups in that verse. Grammar of verse 16 tells us, we(both Jews and Gentiles) walk with God, according to the commandments, we have peace in Christ, and God's grace upon us, and blessing on the people of God. Verse 16 speaks of blessing upon God's people, who walk by obey the commandments, peace, and mercy.

Gal. 4:26 is very clear speak to us all both Jews and Gentiles are the mohter's up above - New Jerusalem.

Israel is New Jerusalem
Church is New Jerusalem

but the Trinity is not an explicity teaching of the OT

Word. 'trinity' is not find in the Bible.

But, 'trinity' is obivously prove in Genesis 1:26 -"And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.".

Obivously, it tells us, there was more than one person created Adam. No question, Christ was already there. In John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God." Obivously, Jesus Christ IS the WORD. Christ is God. Christ was already there when He created heaven and earth. Christ IS the creator.

John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoice to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Christ told Jews, Abraham saw Christ. Also, Christ told them - John 8:58 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE Abraham was, I AM." Jesus Christ already there before Abraham born. Obivously, Christ is God.

Yes, the OT saints followed the Lord, same as we follow the Lord.

I know, that the OT saints do not forward toward calvary. Because they do not understand the prophecy of calvary. Yet, they do have faith in Christ. N.T. already fulfilled O.T. propheices speak of calvary. We do not yet see Christ in a person, yet we do have faith in Christ, same as what O.T. saints have their faith in Christ. Both are no difference.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[aefting]

Where in the OT do you see any such thing? Nobody in teh OT is ever told to believe on Christ or to "look forward to the cross." They were told to bring a sacrifice by faith. They were not even told what that sacrifice represented.

One of hte major weaknesses in much of theology, as evidenced here by you, is failure to understand progressive revelation. Remember, that while we have all 66 books, the OT people had very little. They do not know what we know. You cannot go back and impose our knowledge on them. They did not have that knowledge.

Although I know several godly men who say the same thing, I’m not sure that all dispensationalists believe this. I, for one, have a hard time with it because it seems to contradict several passages in the NT that explicitly state OT truths about Christ, the gospel, and the necessity of believing in Him for salvation. Acts 10:43 is an example of what I mean:

To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. (ESV)

Here is a verse that says that the OT prophets bore witness to Christ and that those who believe in him receive salvation. I don’t think anyone is arguing that OT believers knew as much about Christ as we do or the details of how God’s plan of redemption would ultimately be fulfilled, but, even though all that has been made clear to us, the OT did bear witness to it as Romans 3:21-22 says:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (ESV)

Even Christ Himself said that the OT bore witness to Himself and that it was written in the OT that Christ should die, rise, and that salvation would come through His name (Luke 24:44-47):

Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. (ESV)

I would be interested to see how you and other dispensationalists who take your position understand these verses.


Andy

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by DeafPosttrib:
I am curious, why you do not agree with Van Impe, LaHaye, Scofield, Larkin, Ice, and Linsdey? You saying, that you agree with John Walvoord and Dwight Pentacost? You agree with two authros over anothers. I am curious, why do you agree with Walvoord and Pentacost?

Walvoord and Pentecost made exegetical arguments more than the others. They are not caught up in the sensationalism. RL Thomas from the Master's Seminary is also a very good source.

Again, I emphasis that we must sticky with God's Word! Men's teachings could be error - Colossians 2:8. Maybe you are wrong, maybe I am wrong too. Only the Holy Spirit is our teacher, guide us to understand God's Word - 1 John 2:27. Ask Holy Spirit for the guide to understand God's Word while study.

I absolutely agree, which is why I am pretrib. I am convinced that SCripture cannot rightly be handled in any other way. If others disagree, then that is fine.

Again, you still not yet show me verse to prove that the Church will be gone , and will not be there in time. I guess you eschew my question, that mean pretribulationism is a fallacy doctrine?

Not at all avoiding the question. TO the contrary, I have answered it many times in this forum. I simply find it unproductive to repeat myself. If you are truly interested, then study it. I don't mean that negatively at all. Some people are not interested enough to really get serious about studying the issues and that is fine. There are some things I am like that about. I simply don't want to take hte time to repeat what has been said many times.

'So' shows the result of.

Yes, but as a result of the fulness of the Gentiles, then God will fulfill his promise to Israel the nation. That is exactly what the next verse says. That, in and of itself, does not argue for pretribulationism. But it does show a clear distinction between Isreal as a nation and the church. It shows that promises made to ISrael the nation will be fulfilled with Israel the nation.

we are now part of Israel.

If so, then Rom 11 makes no sense. The contrast is between "us" and "Israel." Israel, the text says, will be the recipients of the promises God made to them. "Us" (i.e., we) will not stand in the way of that even though we are saved now. God will still keep the promises he made to them.

When I show you of Gal. 6:16. You say to me, there are two groups, because of word 'and'. You doing the same as what Ed Edwards doing to me. Not what in Paul's mind. He does not saying two groups in that verse. Grammar of verse 16 tells us, we(both Jews and Gentiles) walk with God, according to the commandments, we have peace in Christ, and God's grace upon us, and blessing on the people of God. Verse 16 speaks of blessing upon God's people, who walk by obey the commandments, peace, and mercy.

But that is not what the verse says. What is in Paul's mind is what he wrote on the page. We certainly have all the blessings of God as the church. Paul prays for those same blessings on the Israel of God as well. There are two different groups.

But, 'trinity' is obivously prove in Genesis 1:26 -"And God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.".

Obivously, it tells us, there was more than one person created Adam. No question, Christ was already there.

I agree that Christ was there, but not because of 1:26. That may be a reference to the Trinity. I am not denying that. But the fact is that the trinity was not explicit in the OT. It has to be read in from NT revelation. The "us" in 1:26 may indeed be a majestic plural.

In John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was God." Obivously, Jesus Christ IS the WORD. Christ is God. Christ was already there when He created heaven and earth. Christ IS the creator.

No one disputes that.

John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoice to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Christ told Jews, Abraham saw Christ. Also, Christ told them - John 8:58 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, BEFORE Abraham was, I AM." Jesus Christ already there before Abraham born. Obivously, Christ is God.

Again, I am not disagreeing with that.

Yes, the OT saints followed the Lord, same as we follow the Lord.

I agree.

Yet, they do have faith in Christ.

This is the issue. How do you have faith in something you don't even know about?? THe OT believers had virtually no revelation about Christ. Faith requires knowledge. There is not one OT passage that commands one to believe in Christ (cf ACts 16:31). It simply isn't there.

We do not yet see Christ in a person, yet we do have faith in Christ, same as what O.T. saints have their faith in Christ. Both are no difference.

There is a big difference ... Incarnation. Heb 1:1 talks about revelation ... in previous days it was prophets; now it is Christ. This difference is substantial. We have fiath in a Christ that we know about. The OT believer did not know about that.

 

[Daniel David]

One thing about salvation in Christ in the Old Testament that I as a dispy do believe in, is that they might not have had the exact picture we have, they did have an idea as to who he was.

For example, Adam and Eve from the beginning knew it was to be a male that would be virgin born.

Job knew he would stand victorious over the world.

The Scriptures say that Abraham saw Isaac as a type. He knew that the Savior would rise again (that is why he was so willing to sacrifice his only beloved son).

He would be of the Davidic line.

Many, many more could be posted.

It was getting quite specific. Simeon even knew the approximate time of his birth.

They did not put their faith in Christ as we know him. However, they did have to put their faith in the Messiah to come and redeem them. This picture was coming into focus.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Pastor Larry]

DD,

I am not sure the the virgin born part of Gen 3:15 could be subsantiated apart from what we know because of later revelation. It does not seem to be "self-attesting" per se. Likewise with the situation with Isaac and Abraham.

I think this assumes more than should be assumed, based on what the OT actually says. It is very difficult for us to pretend like we don't know about the virgin birth and Calvary, etc. But based on OT revelation, how much did they actually know.

But I would seriously question your last statement that "they did have to put their faith in the Messiah to come and redeem them." Do you have any evidence from the OT that this was a requirement? Is there any such "believe in the Messiah to come and you shall be saved" promise?

I don't think there is. On this you are certainly correct that fiath was necessary for salvation, as was the death of Christ. But the content of faith was different for them. They were required to believe that God would accept their sacrifices as payment for their sin. Beyond that, they do not appear to be told about the typical nature of the sacrifices.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Andy,

You must read those verses and make the distinction between meaning and application. I do believe that the OT prophesied about Christ. And knowing what we know now, we can see that belief on him was required for salvation.

But remember that revelation was growing. Those in teh time of Adam and Eve knew less than those in the Time of David who knew less than those in the time of Isaiah ... etc ... The problem is that some people's view completely ignores this. I think 1 Peter 1:10-12 shows that some prophets did indeed know some things, but they did not know everything.

In Rom 3:21-22, what did the OT bear witness to?? I don't think it was to Christ. I think it was to the righteousness of God ... i.e., that sin required a necessary sacrifice.

We have to make distinctions that progressive revelation makes and that is what I think the great failure of these "believe in Christ in hte OT" schemes do not do. It is not even a matter of amount of revelation, but rather a matter of the content of saving faith. What did they have to believe in order to be saved? I think they had to believe that God would forgive sins because of the sacrifice. Why do I believe that? Becuase that is what Scripture says. Scripture does not say they needed to believe anything else.

God told them, "If you offer these sacrifices, your sins will be forgiven." There was nothing about the typological nature of the sacrifices, or a Messiah to come, etc.

 

[Russ Kelly]

Defending Dispensationalism
Let's discuss where non-dispensational doctrine came from for a change.

AFter the AD 70 and AD 135 era, the nation, Israel, disappeared from history until 1948.

This is also the time period that the various churches and eschatological doctrines came into existence.

From AD 135 until the mid 19th century, most Bible students, including Baptists, looked at all of the literal unconditdional promises made to national Israel in the O.T. --- and decided that they must apply to the Church in a spiritual way.

In other words, non-dispensationalists were influenced by current history and newspapers when they interpreted "Israel" from the O.T. That was, and is, their faulty hermeneutic!!!

At least give credit to Darby, Larkin, and Scofield for literally believing the Bible when there was no such thing as a nation of Israel. They must have been severely laughed at --- until 1948. Walvoord's book,The Millennial KIngdom, traces this doctrine farther back than even covenant theology.

Now, the non-dispensationalists who laughed at them are denying their own heremeutical mistake.
Your error was born in a time of theological darkness concerning Israel.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Russ Kelly -- Preach it!

 

[DeafPosttrib]

None anywhere in the New Testament saying Jews will finally posses their own land - Israel as nation again in the last days.

Important thing that we should think about the Calvary. We should understand what the covenants in the Bible talking about.

Right now, we are not under the old covenant anymore. New Covenant replaced old covenant - Heb. 8:13 by Calvary.

We now share the promise of Abraham's seed through Jesus Christ by our faith in Galatians chapter 3. Both Jews and Gentiles shall share inherit eternality things on new earth and in New Jerusalem at Christ's coming, not just for only Israel - tiny physical nation, also whole nations through Abraham's promise in Galatians chapter 3. Both are ALREADY reconciled unity together in Jesus Christ by Calvary - Eph. 2:12-16, no more divided again forever and ever. Why should we believe Israel and Church are currently distinct or separate which are against Calvary? We tahnkful for Calvary, that we are now united with Jews to share the same promise of Abraham's seed through Jesus Christ forever and ever.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[aefting]

You must read those verses and make the distinction between meaning and application.

Maybe you could elaborate because I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

But remember that revelation was growing. Those in teh time of Adam and Eve knew less than those in the Time of David who knew less than those in the time of Isaiah ... etc ... The problem is that some people's view completely ignores this. I think 1 Peter 1:10-12 shows that some prophets did indeed know some things, but they did not know everything.

I agree with the concept of progressive revelation but Adam and Eve did know something. They knew about the promised seed of the woman that would eventually destroy sin and Satan. Let’s take Abel and Cain for an example. They both offered sacrifices but God had respect towards Abel and his sacrifice but not Cain and his sacrifice. I think it is significant that the Bible says God had a problem with Cain, not just his sacrifice, and had respect for Abel, not just his sacrifice. Why did God respect Abel but not Cain? Well, Hebrews 11 says that Abel had faith and that he was recognized as righteous. What did Abel believe? Can there be any doubt that it was that promised seed? What other promise had God made? Just like Abraham, Abel believed God and was imputed with Christ’s righteousness, the Christ that was revealed to him as the promised seed.

In Rom 3:21-22, what did the OT bear witness to?? I don't think it was to Christ. I think it was to the righteousness of God ... i.e., that sin required a necessary sacrifice.

Notice, though, that the thought about the righteousness of God continues or is clarified in verse 22 – even the righteousness of God through faith in Christ for all who believe. That is what the OT bore witness to. Throughout the book of Romans, Paul takes pains to show that the doctrine of salvation that he is teaching is supported by the OT Scriptures. He was not proposing some new doctrine. Doesn’t Paul argue in Romans 4 that we are saved in the same way as Abraham and David?

It is not even a matter of amount of revelation, but rather a matter of the content of saving faith. What did they have to believe in order to be saved? I think they had to believe that God would forgive sins because of the sacrifice.

What sacrifice? Their animal sacrifices or the sacrifice that those animal sacrifices pointed to?

God told them, "If you offer these sacrifices, your sins will be forgiven." There was nothing about the typological nature of the sacrifices, or a Messiah to come, etc.

Larry, I know that you have much more training than I do and perhaps I’m reading this wrong and maybe I’m wrong, but I can hardly believe that you wrote this. To me this doesn’t seem that much different from the Scofield notes that teach a works based salvation in the OT. The sacrifices in the OT were a matter of obedience to maintain a right relationship with God, they did not establish that relationship or provide a means for justification. Why were the Jews looking for the Messiah if they were not looking for Him to be their savior?


Andy

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

How important is it that OT saints had a complete picture of Christ's sacrifice? Our (and their) salvation is not based on our own intellect, it is based entirely on the God's application of the shed blood of Christ. God knew. And even now, we see only a sliver of the majesty of God and His workings and plan. It's Christ's work, not ours.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by aefting:
Maybe you could elaborate because I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

Meaning is what the original author intended the original reader to understand. There is only one. Our job in exegesis is to get to that meaning.

Application can be many. It is how the truth of that text applies to any of the myriad of situations in daily life whether in the original readers lives or in ours, or in any life in between. Application takes the timeless truth from the passage and plugs it in to the "now" context.

I agree with the concept of progressive revelation but Adam and Eve did know something. They knew about the promised seed of the woman that would eventually destroy sin and Satan. Let’s take Abel and Cain for an example. They both offered sacrifices but God had respect towards Abel and his sacrifice but not Cain and his sacrifice. I think it is significant that the Bible says God had a problem with Cain, not just his sacrifice, and had respect for Abel, not just his sacrifice. Why did God respect Abel but not Cain? Well, Hebrews 11 says that Abel had faith and that he was recognized as righteous.

I agree. I think the problem was Cain's attitude.

What did Abel believe? Can there be any doubt that it was that promised seed?

Yes, I think there can be great doubt. In fact, I see no reason to suggest that that is what Cain believed becuase the text says no such thing. IN fact, the text never hints at such a thing. You may be right ... but that point cannot be made from teh text, which is our authority.

What other promise had God made? Just like Abraham, Abel believed God and was imputed with Christ’s righteousness, the Christ that was revealed to him as the promised seed.

Again, you are reading later revelation back. We simply have no way of knowing any of this because Scripture gives no such indication.

Throughout the book of Romans, Paul takes pains to show that the doctrine of salvation that he is teaching is supported by the OT Scriptures. He was not proposing some new doctrine. Doesn’t Paul argue in Romans 4 that we are saved in the same way as Abraham and David?

Yes he does. I believe people in all dispensations were saved by faith. But the content of that faith, the "what we are supposed to believe" changed according to the revelation given.

What sacrifice? Their animal sacrifices or the sacrifice that those animal sacrifices pointed to?

For them, it was their sacrifice. The typology simply isn't found in the antecedent text. It is found in later texts.

To me this doesn’t seem that much different from the Scofield notes that teach a works based salvation in the OT. The sacrifices in the OT were a matter of obedience to maintain a right relationship with God, they did not establish that relationship or provide a means for justification.

It is greatly different than Scofield/Larkin/et al. I totally reject the salvation by works. The sacrifices were the evidence of faith. People were saved by their faith. You are right that sacrifices were not just for salvation; they served other parts as well.

Why were the Jews looking for the Messiah if they were not looking for Him to be their savior?

Some were looking for a King. It is obvious that even the disciples did not understand that Jesus was to die. Some understood him as the savior; some did not. The leaders rejected him because they saw him as the King who was not being Kingly ... .

 

[Pastor Larry]

BTW, Andy and others, my time is limited so I don't know how much time I will have to further this. I love the discussion and I think it is important, though not a matter of salvation. So if my posts are limited, please understand I am not ducking the questions. It is simply a matter of time and priorities for me ...

 

[DeafPosttrib]

We seem off the track, debate on other issue of Dispensationalism. Let's us stay on the same track, focus on these verses what Dave given.


Romans 10:12 "For there is NO difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over ALL is rich unto ALL that call upon him"

Tell me, does Romans 10:12 telling, there is difference between Israel and Church of today's?

Galatians 3:26-29 "For ye are ALL the children of God by faith IN Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are ALL ONE IN Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Does Gal. 3:26-29 telling us, God have different plans for Israel and Church relate to Abraham's seed of the promise of today's and the future?

Eph. 3:21, 4:4 "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. There is ONE body, and ONE Spirit, even as ye are called in ONE hope of your calling."

Does Eph. 3:21 tells us the Church shall be end at rapture BEFORE tribulation period comes? Does Eph. 4:4 tells us, there is distinct between Jew and Greek of Christ's body?

1 Corinthians 12:12 "For as the body is ONE, and hath many members, and ALL the members of that ONE BODY, being many, are ONE BODY: so also IS Christ."

Does it tells us, Israel is not invlove within in Christ's body?

2 Corinthians 5:16-17 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.There if ANY man be IN Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

It tells us, if ANY person be In Christ, person is a new creature. It speaks of today's that either Jew or Gentile be in Christ's, is a new creature. That verse does not discuss about the future different plan of Israel and the Church. It speaks of today, if any person either Jew or Gentile be in Christ's, person is a new creature. Remember, we are in the New Testament time, we are no longer under the Old Testament - Heb. 8:13. Because of Calvary.

Colossians 3:10-11 "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is ALL, and in ALL."

It tells us, no matter who person - Gentile or Jew, all are in Christ's. Either America or Israel, all are in Christ's by through the faith.

Hebrews 2:10, 10:10,14 "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. By the which will WE are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for ALL. For by ONE offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Christ died on the cross, not just for the Church - Gentiles only, also, He died for whole world either Jew or Gentiles, even include all O.T. saints, and N.T. saints, He died for whole ages of the world at ONCE. He died for tiny physical nation - Israel, America, and whole world throughout all ages - ONCE.

Ephesians 2:13-22 "But NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both ONE, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinanaces; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile BOTH unto God in ONE body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you when were afar off, and to them that were night.For though him we both have access by ONE Spirit unto the Father. NOW there ye are NO MORE strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord. In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit[p/B]."

Do Ephesians 2:13-22 tell us, Jews and Gentiles both are CURRENTLY separated right now? Shall God removed Gentiles from the Jews at the rapture? If so,. then pretrib/disp doctrine teaching is against the Calvary.

We must stay sticky with these verses as Dave gaven, let's focus on them to discuss about our present day, and the future too. Do not turn off out the track on other issues on this topic. Let's stay focus on this same track and discuss about them.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Tell me, does Romans 10:12 telling, there is difference between Israel and Church of today's?

Romans 10:12 is talking about Jews and non-Jews. It is saying that Christ is Lord over all.

Does it tells us, Israel is not invlove within in Christ's body?

Yes, when an Israelite (Jew) gets saved today, they become a part of Christ's body. There is no longer any division between them. Jews do not have advanced standing or better blessings that non-Jews in the church.

Do Ephesians 2:13-22 tell us, Jews and Gentiles both are CURRENTLY separated right now?

No, not right now ... They are not separated right now. Every believer, whether Jew or Gentile, is a member of the one body of Christ right now.

Shall God removed Gentiles from the Jews at the rapture?

No, because the rapture takes the whole church, not just the Gentiles. After the rapture, there will be unsaved Jews and unsaved Gentiles left.

If so,. then pretrib/disp doctrine teaching is against the Calvary.

No it's not. It has nothing to do with that.

These verses you have quoted, as we have said many times, are about the church. They are not about those outside the church. After the rapture, Jews and Gentiles will be left on the earth to go through the tribulation. You keep quoting these verses. We have already dealt with these verses. We have already explained them. The "one body of Christ" is the church. It does not apply to anyone outside of the church, whether now or in the eschaton.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Russ Kelly:
Defending Dispensationalism

At least give credit to Darby, Larkin, and Scofield for literally believing the Bible when there was no such thing as a nation of Israel.

Could you give some sources that show dispensationalism was around before Larkin, Scofield and Darby.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Larry,

Romans 10:12 speaks of ANY individuals over the world of today's. Isn't Romans 10:11 apply to us of today's. Isn't Romans 10:12 apply to either Jew or Gentile believer, who now dwell in Israel of today's? Paul's point of Romans 10:12 does not limited to Jews also, Romans 10:12 is NOT what in Paul's mind, it applies to Jews as physical nation - Israel, Romans 10:12 speaks of ANY individuals over the world of today's from Pentacost Day to the end of the world at Lord's coming.

Jews do not have advanced standing or better blessings that no-Jews in the Church

In your mind, we as Gentiles have better blessing and advanced standing than Jews have - today's. Where did you get the idea come from? Please prove us a verse to support your teaching. Again, Paul reminds us, there is NO difference between Jews and Gentiles, both are same, as both have the SAME Lord over all. Both are share the same blessing of today after the result of Calvary. Nothing saying anywhere in the New Testament, that Gentiles have a better blessing than Jews have.

No, not right NOW...They are not seperatd right NOW. Every believe, whether Jew or Gentiles, is a member of the one body of Christ right NOW

In your mind, Church shall be separate FROM Israel in the future ar the rapture. If so, you have to prove us, where verse to support your teaching?

Church is for over ALLLLLLLLLLLL nations include Israel as physical nation of today's that Calvary already reconciled both Jews and Gentiles together into one. No longer divided between Jews and Gentiles after the the result of Calvary forever and ever.

The definition of Church means any individual of any nations include Israel as physical nation either Jew or Gentile who have faith in Jesus Christ, they are the member of the body of Christ is ONE body as God's family.

Again, I want to tell you, during Old Testament period, Israel was speak of physical nation, but, we are in the New Testament period, Israel is speak of spiritual nation - 1 Peter 2:9.

No, because the rapture takes the whole church, not just the Gentiles. After the rapture, there will be unsaved Jews and unsaved Gentiles left.

Remember the lesson of the flood in Genesis chapter 7 telling us, when the flood came and destroyed the world. Was any person who was outside the Ark, survived the flood? 1 Peter 3:20 tells us, there was only EIGHT people saved in the Ark during flood. ALL people were killed in hte flood. No one was survived after the flood. SO, it shall be same at Lord's coming - Matt. 24:39.

Matt. 25:11-13 tells us, once Christ comes, there shall be NO another chance for repentance. All unbelievers shall be cast away into everlasting fire at Lord's coming - Matt. 13:39-42; 49-50; and Matt 25:31-46.

After the rapture, Jews and Gentiles will be left on the earth to go through the tribulation

Again, Matt 13:39-42, 49-50; Matt 25:31-46; and 2 Thess. 1:7-9 tell us, all unbelievers shall be cast away into everlasting life at the Lord's coming, there shall be no remain left for unbelievr to enter eternalit kingdom. Matt 13:28-30 teach us, both believers and unbelievers are growing over the world currently right now, it is continue to growing together UNTILLLL Christ comes with his angels at the end of the world, then shall separate unbelievers from the believers and cast them into everlasting fire - Matt 13:30, 39-42, 49-50. No unbelievr shall be remain left after the judgement day at the Lord's coming. Only believers either Jew or Gentile shall inherit on new earth and in New Jerusalem with Christ forever and ever.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[aefting]

Do not turn off out the track on other issues on this topic. Let's stay focus on this same track and discuss about them.

OK, I will start a new thread.

Andy