Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
Replacement theology has become dispensationalism's latest prophetic boogeyman. If you want to end a debate over eschatology, just charge your opponent with holding to replacement theology. What is “replacement theology,” sometimes called “supersessionism,” and why do dispensationalists accuse non-dispensationalists of holding it? Here’s a typical dispensational definition:
Replacement Theology: a theological perspective that teaches that the Jews have been rejected by God and are no longer God’s Chosen People. Those who hold to this view disavow any ethnic future for the Jewish people in connection with the biblical covenants, believing that their spiritual destiny is either to perish or become a part of the new religion that superseded Judaism (whether Christianity or Islam).1
“Replacement theology” is dispensationalism’s trump card in any debate over eschatology because it implies anti-semitism. Hal Lindsey attempted to use this card in his poorly researched and argued The Road to Holocaust.2 He wove an innovative tale implying that anyone who is not a dispensationalist carries the seeds of anti-semitism within his or her prophetic system. This would mean that every Christian prior to 1830 would have been theologically anti-semitic although not personally anti-semtic.
As Peter Leithart and I point out in The Legacy of Hatred Continues,3 it’s dispensationalists who hold to a form of replacement theology since they believe that Israel does not have any prophetic significance this side of the rapture! Prior to the rapture, in terms of dispensational logic, the Church has replaced Israel. This is unquestionably true since God’s prophetic plan for Israel has been postponed until the prophetic time clock starts ticking again at the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week which starts only after the Church is taken to heaven in the so-called rapture. Until then, God is dealing redemptively with the Church. Am I making this up? Consider the following by dispensationalist E. Schuyler English:
An intercalary4 period of history, after Christ’s death and resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has intervened. This is the present age, the Church age. . . . During this time God has not been dealing with Israel nationally, for they have been blinded concerning God’s mercy in Christ. . . . However, God will again deal with Israel as a nation. This will be in Daniel’s seventieth week, a seven-year period yet to come.5
According to English and every other dispensationalist, the Church has replaced Israel until the rapture. The unfulfilled promises made to Israel are not fulfilled until after the Church is taken off the earth. Thomas Ice, one of dispensationalism’s rising stars, admits that the Church replaces Israel this side of the rapture: “We dispensationalists believe that the church has superseded Israel during the current church age, but God has a future time in which He will restore national Israel ‘as the institution for the administration of divine blessings to the world.’”6
Dispensationalists claim that their particular brand of eschatology is the only prophetic system that gives Israel her proper place in redemptive history. This is an odd thing to argue since two-thirds of the Jews will be slaughtered during the post-rapture tribulation, and the world will be nearly destroyed. Charles Ryrie writes in his book The Best is Yet to Come that during this post-rapture period Israel will undergo “the worst bloodbath in Jewish history.”7 The book’s title doesn’t seem to very appropriate considering that during this period of time most of the Jews will die! John Walvoord follows a similar line of argument: “Israel is destined to have a particular time of suffering which will eclipse any thing that it has known in the past. . . . [T]he people of Israel . . . are placing themselves within the vortex of this future whirlwind which will destroy the majority of those living in the land of Palestine.”8 Arnold Fruchtenbaum states that during the Great Tribulation “Israel will suffer tremendous persecution (Matthew 24:15–28; Revelation 12:1–17). As a result of this persecution of the Jewish people, two-thirds are going to be killed.”9
During the time when Israel seems to be at peace with the world, she is really under the domination of the antichrist who will turn on her at the mid-point in the seven-year period. Israel waits more than 2000 years for the promises finally to be fulfilled, and before it happens, two-thirds of them are wiped out. Those who are charged with holding a “replacement theology viewpoint” believe in no inevitable future Jewish bloodbath. In fact, we believe that the Jews will inevitably embrace Jesus as the Messiah this side of the Second Coming. The fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8 is a past event. It may have had its fulfillment in the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Contrary to dispensationalism’s interpretation of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus' disciples warned the Jewish nation for nearly forty years about the impending judgment (Matt. 3:7; 21:42–46; 22:1–14; 24:15–22). Those who believed Jesus’ words of warning were delivered “from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10). Those who continued to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah, even though they had been warned for a generation (Matt. 24:34), “wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1 Thess. 2:16; cf. 1 Thess. 5:1–11; 2 Pet. 3:10–13).
Before critics of replacement theology throw stones, they need to take a look at their own prophetic system and see its many lapses in theology and logic.
Read Part Two of this article...
2. Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989). The address for Bantam Books is 666 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York.
3. Gary DeMar and Peter J. Leithart, The Legacy of Hatred Continues: A Response to Hal Lindsey’s The Road to Holocaust (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1989).
4. Inserted into the calendar.
5. E. Schuyler English, A Companion to the New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 135.
6. Thomas Ice, “The Israel of God,” The Thomas Ice Collection: www.raptureready.com/featured/TheIsraelOfGod.html#_edn3
7. Charles C. Ryrie, The Best is Yet to Come (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981), 86.
8. John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1962), 107, 113. Emphasis added.
9. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “The Little Apocalypse of Zechariah,” The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 262.
LOL!
It has?
The Jews have said that Christ is their God?
Christ said the last days would be the worst in human history (Mat.24:21) which 70 AD doesn't qualify as.
As for the intercalation, the author is right, we believe that God is using the Church today, not Israel.
But I noticed that he doesn't give our New Testament scriptural justification for it, it is based on the reading in Rom.11:25-28.
7) The promised Deliverer will come out of Zion and the nation will be saved (Romans 11:25-29). That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture. The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham ; Genesis 15:5,6; Galatians 3:29 and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant.
It should be noted that when Scofield wrote his notes, there was no nation of Israel in existance.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=ro&chapter=011
Excellent thought. When that is considered in light of Romans 11, then we see that the glass through which Scofield and Darby were viewing was a bit murkier than our own. The existence of the nation of Israel does cause one to think more about the possibilities in prophetic literature about the promises to national Israel.
The only way to avoid dutifully viewing such ideas would be to ignore them.
In fact, many ethnic Jews have. Where have you been for the last 2000 years? Or do you believe all these millions of Jewish converts to Christ who in faith have cried out "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" are inferior, disenfranchised "semi-Jews" of some sort?
Christ said the last days would be the worst in human history (Mat.24:21) which 70 AD doesn't qualify as.
Such a statement demonstrates a deficient understanding of hyperbolic and superlative language as it is used in the Bible.
Second, [in the Great Tribulation narrative] Jesus was using dramatic hyperbole or a proverbial method of speech taken directly from the Old Testament. Note the words spoken by Ezekiel regarding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. "And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations" (Ezek. 5:9). Does this passage teach that Israel endured the worst judgment in human history in the 6th century B.C.? No. No one believes that the destruction wrought by the Babylonians was worse than that of the Romans in A.D. 70. The point is that the destruction will be severe, excruciating and unique. Similarly Daniel says, "by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the whole heaven such has never been done as what has been done to Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:12). "And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time" (Dan. 12:1). "The language of v. 19 [i.e., Mk. 13:19 the parallel to Mt. 24:21], as also of Dan, 12:1, which it cites, uses traditional expressions to denote severe tribulation, not simply of Israel but of other people also." For example, such language is even used to describe the anguish of the Egyptians after the tenth plague. "Then there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before, nor shall be like it again" (Ex. 11:6; cf. 9:18; 10:14). "The cry of anguish sent up by this destruction will be unique, just as the disaster will be unique." Morison writes regarding Matthew 24:21, "It is superlative in its relation both to the past and to the future. We might explain this superlative mode of representation by the freedom which is universally assumed and accorded in popular speech. Men speak unhesitantly, when referring to anything remarkable, of the 'highest,' the 'greatest,' the 'extremist.' It is an idiom of hyperbolism." (Matthew 24 and the Great Tribulation by Brian Schwertley)Carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture will cure you of the noxious infection of the error of the dispensational system. By adopting a biblical hermeneutical system you will be forcing yourself to follow the rules of the Word of God, not the fanciful inventions of folks like CI Scofield, Tommy Ice, and Hal Lindsey.
So what are you claiming that the notes are saying to support the dispensational theory? To me this is only speaking of one time, that is the continuum of time "from everlasting".
INDEED . . .
God has spoken differently in different eras while remaining unchangeably Himself.
He has His reasons . . . whether Replacementarians can wrap their theology around such, or not.
It may grieve Him that they don’t trust His Word for what He says in it. But it won’t hinder Him working out His will as stated in His Word a gnat’s burp’s worth.
would be to ignore them.
= = =
On that score, Replacementarians appear to be Olympic class gold medalist PhD’s.
Ignoring Scripture must be one of their highest rated doctrines.
Regarding Josh.22:43, it is referring to Gen.17:8 and Num. 34 not Gen.15.18.
Bullinger states in a note on Gen.15:18, that those boundaries were never possessed.
It would seem that Solomon kingdoms came close (1Ki.4:21),but did not reach the Nile (river) of Egypt.
The note says times not time.
Clearly, it is speaking of different periods of time that culminates in final in-gathering of the saints.
The note is speaking of past, present and future saints, not just present ones, as your post seem to indicate.
Scofield, right?
Regarding Josh.22:43, it is referring to Gen.17:8 and Num. 34 not Gen.15.18.
Bullinger states in a note on Gen.15:18, that those boundaries were never possessed.
Can you demonstrate any of this from the Bible without referring to Scofield or Bullinger?
If I say, "the times from Adam to Noah", am I speaking of one continuum, one period of time, or multiple, distinct periods of time? Can you tell?
The note is speaking of past, present and future saints, not just present ones, as your post seem to indicate.
Yes, but "past, present and future saints" in a single age or in multiple distinct ages? What set of presuppositions forces you to one view or the other?
That is such a subjective position.
If I say, "the times from Adam to Noah", am I speaking of one continuum, one period of time, or multiple, distinct periods of time? Can you tell?
If you were speaking of one single continuum, wouldn't you use the word 'time' and not 'times'?
[ The note is speaking of past, present and future saints, not just present ones, as your post seem to indicate. ]
Yes, but "past, present and future saints" in a single age or in multiple distinct ages? What set of presuppositions forces you to one view or the other?
Robertson says that the 'fullness of times' here refers to 'epochs'
Unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times (ei� oikonomian tou plhrwmato� twn kairwn). See Colossians 1:25 for oikonomian. In Galatians 4:4 "the fulness of the time" (to plhrwma tou cronou) the time before Christ is treated as a unit, here as a series of epochs (kairwn).
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=eph&chapter=001&verse=010&next=011&prev=009
No, they become Christians and are no longer Jews in this Dispensation.
Just like a Gentile ceases to be a Gentile after he receives Christ.
Now, Zech 13:8 is speaking of 1/3 of the Jews calling on Christ, which has never happened-but will.
Thanks.
That was my memory but didn’t have the texts in view when I said it was the case.
HOWEVER, IT WILL BE THE CASE . . . THEY SHALL POSSESS EVERY LAST GRAIN OF SAND PROMISED.
GOD
IS
NOT
SLACK
CONCERNING !HIS! PROMISES!
PRAISE HIS NAME.
Uncle Chip,
I’m beginning to wonder what the point of demonstrating anything from the Bible is.
Their rubber Bibles, rubber dictionaries, rubber history books, rubber logic books render any Scripture they feel like—void or nonexistent.
Amazing.
Thankfully, God will have the last laugh.
And the abomination of desolation being put into the Temple,(Mat.24:15) when did that happen in the siege of 70AD, especially since the Zelots controlled the city-or was that also 'hyperbolic' language as well?
That is such a subjective position.
= = =
Given the solidness and even clarity though at times mysterious of Scripture,
a subjective position is all that the Replacementarian perspective CAN be left with.
Congrats
I love to see the truth of Scripture and of the key words posted on these threads.
Gets some clothing in a wad but anyway it’s well worth it.
Yes, because I read the passages that they cited.
You see the limits of Solomons kingdom in 1Ki.4:21 (cf 2Chron.9:26) where it states that Solomon ruled a kingdom which went to the border of Egypt not into it (the Nile).
Gen.15:8 is speaking of going from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the Euphrates.
It was a good exercise looking up and comparing different verses.
I now have a much clearer understanding of that issue, so I thank Topcat 54 for raising the questions.
The "abomination of desolation" is interpreted for us in places like Luke 21:
20 " Therefore when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilledNow compare it to Matthew 24:
15 " Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes.The things which follows the phrase "Therefore when you see" are related. Luke explains to his primarily gentile readers the meaning of the phrase used in Matthew.
The "abomination of desolation" involved the destruction of the temple of God. The desecration, the "abomination", was about as complete as it could get. However, it is true that the Roman defiled the temple by setting up ensigns in the temple before they burned it to the ground.
In AD 325, the church historian Eusebius documents it this way:
"But the number of calamities which every where fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,-- all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus." (Book III, Ch. 5)
And Dispensationists would not disagree that there is only 'one' time, one Plan of God, but only that within that period of time, God works different ways.
And that view is what the note would seem to support.
The Nile was the border of Egypt in those days. It served as the boundary and guard for Egypt's eastern border.
The abomination of desolation is described in Daniel, which Christ refers to, (9:27,12:11) and has to happen before the destruction of the city since when the Jews saw it occurring they were to flee.
And idol is set up in the Temple that desecrates it (Dan.12:11) and causes all sacrifices to cease.
It had nothing to do with the surrounding of the city, as described in Luke, which do refer to the events of 70AD
Different, how? Do you mean people are saved differently? What is the real significance of this alleged "difference" that we would need to mark it off as different times? Unless you can say categorically what is different there is no way you can say how many of these things there really are. You need to avoid being arbitrary. That is the real objection to the dispensational system.
I’ve already said there are but two "dispensations" (as it is historically used) during this present covenant of grace, what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament.
I believe you said you’ve never read anything by Scofield before. Yet you seem to accept that “Scofield clearly believed that salvation has always been by grace through faith.”
BTW, faith in what? If it’s faith in Christ, then we have no disagreement.
I suggest you re-read the note from Scofield himself and then google “dispensationalism” and “historic premillennialism” and see for yourself the very significant differences between them. You can find them on Web sites such as Theopedia.
While you’re looking them up, see for yourself when (and by whom) dispensationalism began.
Now, since I clearly cite Ryrie, then my earlier statment that I'm not a Scofield scholar is put in proper context.
Ryrie is (was?) far more a scholar than this entire thread put together.
I'd say that I'm fairly comfortable with dispensationalism as an idea.
Even you admit to UPTs, which are just another name for dispensations.
Now, back to my next question which I posed in the last post. Was there anything AT ALL different in the relationship between God & mankind in the Garden UPT than now entails?
The Nile was the border of Egypt in those days. It served as the boundary and guard for Egypt's eastern border.
15:18-21 describes what is referred to in Jewish tradition as Gevulot Ha-aretz ("Borders of the Land") regarded as the full extent of the land promised to Abraham. Numbers 34:1-15 describes the land allocated to the Israelite tribes after the Exodus. The tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Manasseh received land east of the Jordan as explained in Numbers 34:14-15. Numbers 34:1-13 provides a detailed description of the borders of the land allocated to the remaining tribes. The region is called "the Land of Canaan" (Eretz Kna'an) in Numbers 34:2 and the borders are known in Jewish tradition as the "borders for those coming out of Egypt". The English expression "Promised Land" can denote either the land promised to Abraham in Genesis or the land of Canaan, although the latter meaning is more common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel#The_Promised_Land
I haven't seen any map of Solomon's kingdom that him controlling the terrority to the Nile.
“Ryrie is (was?) far more a scholar than this entire thread put together.”
It depends what you mean by “scholar.”
Have you noticed you haven’t answered my questions?
For example, do you believe there are two peoples of God and two (or more) plans for salvation?
Do you believe the OT saints were saved by faith in Christ?
Those are just two questions for now, though I have so many more. Thanks in advance for answering.
Different, how? Do you mean people are saved differently? What is the real significance of this alleged "difference" that we would need to mark it off as different times? Unless you can say categorically what is different there is no way you can say how many of these things there really are. You need to avoid being arbitrary. That is the real objection to the dispensational system. I’ve already said there are but two "dispensations" (as it is historically used) during this present covenant of grace, what we call the Old Testament and the New Testament.
So, you are at least a 'moderate' dispensationist
So, what we are really discussing is the differing views on dispensationalism, not its existance.
No abomination of desolation stood in the Temple of 70 AD
INDEED.
AMEN.
ACCURATE TO SCRIPTURE,
to history;
to logic;
to reality.
Thanks.
The real difference for a classical dispensationist is the difference between church age believers, Christians,(Jews and Gentiles forming one body) and saved Jews and Gentiles after the Rapture, and their future promises.
Another one of those
pesky
Biblical, historical FACTS.
Praise God for the facts.
What do you mean by Faith in Christ?
Peter didn't even want Christ to go the Cross,(Mat.16:22) so he was not saved by believing in the Blood atonement (Rom.3:25) as we are.
None of the Apostles were since they did not believe Christ was going to raise from the dead that is why they all fled.
Yet, among the 12 only Judas was unsaved.
The answer of 2 people of God. Yes, I believe there is a distinction between the natural branches and those grafted in (Rom 11). That is why there are 12 gates and 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem at the end of Revelation. Have you never read that? It is also the probable reason there are 24 elders around the throne (2x12.)
Are there 2 plans of salvation. Yes.
Romans 10: 5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."
6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 "or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
So, yes, there is a righteousness that is by law and there is a righteousness that is by faith.
It matters not in the count of different ways of salvation that the first is impossible for mortal man to accomplish.
I would not use that term for obvious reasons.
But, let's not get diverted from the real issue, which is, the lack of support from the Bible for the seven dispensations ala Scofield's definition.
But there is no difference in the Bible. It is a figment of the dispensationalist’s imagination.
You need to be able to point to something in the Bible, not in Scofield’s Notes.
Only in the dispensational system. Jesus made it clear what the "abomination" really entailed. That is what you are having a hard time dealing with, the words of Scripture. What does Luke 21:20 say? How does it relate to Matthew 24:15? My do you deny the plain import of the words?
The maps in my Bible are not inspired. How ‘bout yours?
The promise in Gen 15:18 continues to describe the land as encompassing the nation of "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites."
And how is it described in 1 Kings 4?
20 Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing. 21 So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.Israel was a numerous as the sands of the seashore (part of the promise) and the land in question comprised all the kingdom listed in Gen.15:19.
And the context of the promise in Gen 15 is clearly regarding the time after they came out of exile in Egypt, not some unknown time far, far in the future ala dispensationalism (cf. vv.13,14).
The OT saints, as well as the disciples (except for one of them) all believed in Christ.
Job 19:25: I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
John 8:56: “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Numbers 24:17: “I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near.”
For belief in Christ was and is the only way to salvation:
John 6:54: Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
There is only ONE PEOPLE of God, not two. One olive tree (Rom 11), not two. There is and always has been only one plan of salvation.
Galatians 3:16: The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
Galatians 3:29: If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
BTW, did you know that Abraham means “father of ALL nations”?
I could send you more verses (there are many more), but suffice to say you can believe whatever you want, but you can’t argue against God’s Word and expect to win.
Why did Christ rebuke those disciples he met on Emmaus road (Lk.24:25-26) for not believing in what had to happen as prophesied?
The verses that you have stated have nothing to do with what the Apostles and disciples believed.
None of them believed that Christ was going to the Cross to die for the sins of the world and be raised again
That was something that they had to learn after the fact, especially Thomas!
The maps in my Bible are not inspired. How ‘bout yours?
So, I take that to be a no, you haven't seen a map that had Solomon's Kingdom extend to the Nile.
The Nile forms a natural boundry, but it is not the political boundry of Egypt.
[ The promise in Gen 15:18 continues to describe the land as encompassing the nation of "the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." ]
And how is it described in 1 Kings 4? 20 Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing. 21 So Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life. Israel was a numerous as the sands of the seashore (part of the promise) and the land in question comprised all the kingdom listed in Gen.15:19. And the context of the promise in Gen 15 is clearly regarding the time after they came out of exile in Egypt, not some unknown time far, far in the future ala dispensationalism (cf. vv.13,14).
Solomon's Kingdom encompassed almost all of the land promised.
Now, the question that the article raised was what was Josh.21:43 referring to when it states that the Lord gave all that he sware to the father's', and that is not referring to Solomon, but to what Moses had told the generation that was going into the Promised Land regarding the land of Canaan (Deut.7:23)
Only in the dispensational system. Jesus made it clear what the "abomination" really entailed. That is what you are having a hard time dealing with, the words of Scripture. What does Luke 21:20 say? How does it relate to Matthew 24:15? My do you deny the plain import of the words?
And what part of the word stood in the Temple do you not understand?
It is you that is denying what the scripture plainly is referring to by attempting to twist the clear meaning of words.
That passage is referring to an idol, that has yet to stand in the Temple.
Now as for Luke, it is referring the 70 AD destruction, but Matthew isn't.
Now in Lk.21:20 I see the word 'desolation' but I do not see the phrase 'Abomination of desolation'.
They are two different things.
The Abomination of desolation is something that stands in the Temple and brings on desolation.
That did not happen in 70AD.
Lk.21:20 tells of armies compassing the city, Matthew 24:15 tells of an idol standing in the holy place
They are two different things for two different times.
The disciples’ faith wavered for a while, as everyone’s does at some time or other, but in no way did they get to heaven without belief in Christ. And they got to heaven, most assuredly.
If you think they got there without believing in Christ, whether because of their ethnicity or any other reason, then you believe a different gospel than that of the Bible.
But there is no difference in the Bible. It is a figment of the dispensationalist’s imagination. You need to be able to point to something in the Bible, not in Scofield’s Notes.
When a person was saved in the Old Testament he did not cease being either Jew or Gentile, today, after the Resurrection, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ (Gal.3:28).
There were no Christians in the Old Testament and there will no Christians after the Rapture, since only Christians make up the bride of Christ (Eph.5:30)
You need to be able to explain another interpetation for those scriptures that those notes refer to as proof of the doctrine.
And based on what you have done with Matthew 24 and Luke 21, it is clear that you are unable to do so without twisting the clear meaning of what the words actually say.
the seven dispensations ala Scofield’s definition.
= =
It’s fascinating . . . Uncle Chip, xzins . . .
TC seems to have an attraction to Scholfield about a trillion times stronger than mine—which is nonexistent.
Maybe he’s got a straw dog factory in China that he needs to keep running.
I would not use that term for obvious reasons. But, let's not get diverted from the real issue, which is, the lack of support from the Bible for the seven dispensations ala Scofield's definition.
Well, you have admitted to accepting at least two Dispensations.
So, your real problem is not Dispensations per se, but the dividing of them.
I actually believe that the Dispensational system should only have three and not 7.
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.