Posted on 04/26/2007 8:07:01 AM PDT by topcat54
What part of what he said is untrue???
Have you read what they say about futurists?
Yes. Some of it is true and some false. But Futurism and Historicism have a lot more in common with each other than Preterism with either. And since a lot of prophecies that were still future 200 years ago are now being fulfilled, a lot of Futurism is now Historicism.
BTW Have you read Alcasar's book???? How does what he says differ from your positions??? and how is it similar???
I realize this is your diversion attempt from the original question which had to do with the official Roman Catholic view of Revelation.
I’m still waiting for some source material.
“John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.”
That was said by John the Apostle 60 years after the fact, not John the Baptist. The previous verse was the comment of John the Baptist. I don’t know what your point is. His gospel was written for the church and of course believers have received the fulness of the Spirit from Him, but not the Old Covenant saints as I pointed out in the scriptures.
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:”
Of course “in the dispensation of the fulness of times” all will be gathered in Christ, but that does not mean all will be in the bride (the church), just that all will come under His authority.
That's funny. It's right on subject --- a sensitive subject however for Preterists.
I’m still waiting for some source material.
Where does it say that I'm supposed to be your errand boy???
You've got to help me with this one...I'm the real dense one around here.
Are you saying that the Messiah was not literal, physical, but just a spirit?
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
You do not have any scripture to support that John the Baptist is not in heaven, nor of Christ's fold, and scripture must interpret scripture. Scripture does not interpret dispensationalism, John Darbism, Schofieldism or "some good Christian novelistism". And vice versa
no
“Scripture does not interpret dispensationalism, John Darbism, Schofieldism or “some good Christian novelistism”. And vice versa”
Yeah, right, whatever!.
...uh...well do you mind explaining that statement because that's sure what it sounds like you're saying. I'm trying to engage in an honest discussion here. If I'm not worthy of your discussion, just let me know. But, just "no"?
The Jewish people were looking for David to come back as a mighty warrior to restore Israel. They foresaw and foresee Israel as a mighty earthly power. Jesus was of course literal, but what he offered the Jews was a spiritual kingdom, not of this world. Satan tempted Him with the offer of worldly power but He resisted. Does that help? Sorry, about the short answer but I try to post in between a million other things, like most of us
Jesus was fully human and fully God, one equal person of the singular Holy Trinity.
The Jews made the mistake of expecting (and still expecting) the Messiah to be primarily human, to be a warrior who would conquer land and armies, and who would lead them, like Moses, to a physical promised land.
We know from the New Testament and the understanding given us by the Holy Spirit in Scripture that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, is not a physical warrior, but a spiritual warrior who will indeed conquer and transform land and armies through a spiritual rebirth.
The physical circumcision has been transformed into a baptism of the new heart, a rebirth in Jesus Christ. And this rebirth will indeed vanquish and redeem land and armies and men's lives, all leading to the true promised land of salvation by Jesus Christ.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." -- Hebrews 8:6-7;13"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
I do understand that Jesus wasn't the physical warrior that the Jews had hoped for. And also sorry, I didn't mean to snap. I'm in the middle of several things too. My bad!
In Christ
Snap away. It makes my snaps less noticeable. 8~)
IF - and again, it is a big IF - dispensationalism leads Christians to say "all is lost because the end times demands a huge apostacy and this sure looks huge to me" then dispensationalists should simply repent and remember that God's hand is not so short that he cannot save, and that should he elect to extend his mercy, we would say with the heathen Ben Franklin that "all the world is becoming religious."
I would be more inclined to blame dispensationalists (we reformed people love to beat up on them, as that weird weird eschatological stuff makes for such a juicy target!) if I did not see the same apathy, despair, materialism unfaith, and unlove for the gospel and the gospel children in my own camp. Maybe it is not the end times at all. Maybe it is just a case of not having because we ain't asking.
John MacArthur is not a “doom sayer”...he is fully assured that there will be ultimate victory for the Lord! And he is fully convinced that the Everlasting Covenant to Israel means that there will be a place for Israel...and the Church in the Millenium.
Thanks, and yes, MacArthur is a man of faith and I can't imagine him being a "doomsayer." Like the guy who asked Billy Graham if he were an optimist or a pessimist and Graham said "an optimist! I have read the last chapter of the Bible and God is going to win!"
That said, it is possible to develop a "malaise" about the culture (certainly enough reasons!) which ignores the possibility that God could (and has in the past) send a mighty revival that sweeps huge infrastructures of evil in the cultural flotsam away like they were nothing. Again, He has done it before, and we aren't restricted to some end times scenario for Him to do so again.
Again, my statement is that dispensationalists MAY be gloomy about our culture, but non-dispensationalists like myself illustrate every bit as much NON-faith as we may accuse dispensationalists of. As to where John MacArthur is on this, I have neither read the book in question, nor listened much to his teaching on the issue. I do know I have a lot of respect for him. Gary DeMar is no one to sneeze at, either.
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.