Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
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.