Posted on 04/09/2007 8:14:11 AM PDT by topcat54
As I continued, however, to study this new system of teaching in its various details, I found there were more errors in it, and worse, than I had at first expected; and these, as they became evident to me, I have attempted, by occasional writings subsequently, to expose. The work, however, is not yet finished; and hence the need for the present volume. Indeed, the time is fully ripe for a thorough examination and frank exposure of this new and subtle form of mod ernism that has been spreading itself among those who have adopted the name "Fundamentalists." For Evangelical Christianity must purge itself of this leaven of dispensationalism ere it can display its former power and exert its former influence. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at gospeltruth.net ...
It will be readily seen therefore, that we have here to do with a system of teaching which, whether true or false, is of the most radical sort. Hence if true, it is most astonishing that not one of the Godly and spiritual teachers of all the Christian centuries had so much as a glimpse of it; and if false, it is high time its heretical character were exposed and the whole system dealt with accordingly. And inasmuch as it contradicts what every Christian teacher, without a known exception, has held to be the indisputable truth of Scripture concerning the Gospel of God and the Kingdom of God, it clearly belongs in the category of those "divers and strange doctrines," against which we are specially warned (Heb. 13:9). For it is undeniably diverse from all that has been hitherto taught the people of God, and it is altogether "strange" to their ears. This I deem worthy of special emphasis, and hence would ask the reader to keep constantly in mind the fact of the absolute novelty of dispensationalism. For here is modernism in the strictest sense; and it is all the more to be feared and shunned because it comes to us in the guise and garb of strict orthodoxy.
We will now take notice of the way the Gospels are handled in the notes of the Scofield Bible with the intent to make an opening for the new doctrine we are examining. That publication, in its "Introduction to the Gospels," says:"In approaching the study of the Gospels the mind should be freed, so far as possible from mere theological concepts and presuppositions. Especially is it necessary to exclude the notion-- a legacy in Protestant thought from post-Apostolic and Roman Catholic theology-- that the church is the true Israel, and that the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the church."First we have here what appears to be merely a general word of caution; namely, that "in approaching the study of the Gospels," we should free our minds "from mere theological concepts and pre-suppositions." This seems reasonable enough; for who would dispute that it were well to have our minds freed from mere theological concepts, not only "when approaching the study of the Gospels," but at all times?But Dr. Scofield was not concerned, when he penned the above words, with "theological concepts and presuppositions" in general. For his aim plainly was to cast discredit upon the view always held by the household of faith touching the Kingdom of God the Gospel of God and the Words of Jesus Christ, and to introduce in its stead a new doctrine radically different there from.
Very lenghty but excellent analysis.
Is there a Readers Digest version of this?
Next to short paragraphs, Cliff Notes are our friend. I hope you are not sitting in front of the screen waiting discussion. This is going to take some time for K to read and tell me what I think of the book.
You need to read the entire thing to get the full effect and the mountainous amount of data.
BTW, Mauro was a premillennialist so I presume you can't use the same "amil/spiritualizng" slam against him.
I think I have explained before, I am not a strict Dispensationalist, but an Historic Premillennialist with a pre trib eccentricity, kind of like Sir Robin in that great spiritual film.
The discussion which precipitated this post had to do with the relationship of the “gospel of the kingdom” vs. what Paul referred to as “my gospel” esp. whether or not there are multiple distinct gospels given in the Bible, some salvific and some not, or whether all these references are merely different perspectives or terminology for the one gospel of grace.
The view of multiple gospels seems to be the view of the older classic dispensationalism (Scofield, Chafer, old Dallas Seminary), and I realize that it has been somewhat abandoned by the more biblical progressive dispensationalists of recent times (new Dallas Seminary).
“Brave, Brave Sir Robin”? That one?
That’s my patron saint. When the tribulation starts, I’m gone!
“When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave Sir Robin”
These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."We all face tribulation, but, thankfully, no one ever again has to face the Great Tribulation on this earth, since that is a matter of history.Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.
does “johnny one note” ring a bell?
(blow a trumpet?)
With so many afffected by this scourge on Christendom, consider it a public service.
After all, it got your attention.
“We all face tribulation, but, thankfully, no one ever again has to face the Great Tribulation on this earth, since that is a matter of history.”
I must be missing something here. Didn’t some of the elect go through the attack on Jerusalem and were scattered because of the destruction? Paul and Peter didn’t escape the fury of Rome and John was exiled to a penal colony. Doesn’t sound like they were counted worthy, unless the Tribulation hasn’t taken place, but I haven’t read the article yet.
Luke 21:34-36, “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.”
AMEN!. Great link, TC.
Sad that Christians need to spend so much time refuting the concoction of dispensational errors that have been put forth in sheep's clothing. But that is what we're called to do.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." -- 2 Timothy 4:2-4 "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Depends on what you mean by "go through". As far as we know, the elect were told to "flee to the mountains" when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies and were thus saved from the wrath of God that was poured out on the city and those people. There is no testimony to suggest any of the elect failed to heed that warning.
Paul and Peter didn’t escape the fury of Rome and John was exiled to a penal colony. Doesn’t sound like they were counted worthy, ...
What they sufffered was not the "Great Tribulation", which was a specfic event at a specific hour.
... unless the Tribulation hasn’t taken place, but I haven’t read the article yet.
There is general tribulation which is common to all believers from time to time, and there is the "Great Tribulation" which, as I said, was a specfic historical event at a specific hour.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1814407/posts
Javier Solana: G8 must be transformed into G10
fr.rian.ru ^ | March 23, 2007
BRUSSELS, March 23, 2007 - RIA Novosti. G8 must be transformed into G10, including China and India, considered the Top representing of the EU for the foreign policy and safety common, Javier Solana, quoted by her service of press.
The operation of G8 (Russia, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan) is not rather any more effective and its composition must be modified, it indicated to the Brooking Institute of Washington.
One could transform it into G10, where the ten principal countries of the world would be represented on the basis of index made up of the international weight (civil GDP, assistance, soldiers and taking part in missions of maintenance of peace), according to the person in charge.
A suitable place should also be prepared for the “heavy lorries” with the Security Council of UNO, it added.
The new powers must as for them realize that a total influence supposes a great responsibility, moreover Javier Solana underlined.
Yes - Old Scofield KJV at Amazon - Excellent Bible!!!
So what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.