Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
I suspect the builders when speaking to our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, also thought He was speaking in hyperbole when He commented He would raise His temple back up in three days.
I don’t think I want to be around when the time in question rolls around.
What does that have to do with whether I accept your theory on the "great tribulation"?
You originally wrote, "Those who believe the Great Tribulation fail to abide in Him through the guidance provided in Romans 11:25."
It still makes no sense at all. I don't expect God can help sort it out either.
“I suspect the builders when speaking to our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, also thought He was speaking in hyperbole when He commented He would raise His temple back up in three days.”
Not sure I understand your comment here, but, anyway, the Pharisees (wrongly) took Christ’s words literally:
John 2:19-21: Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Our Lord was speaking very literally. His body was the temple of God the Holy Spirit.
“Our Lord was speaking very literally. His body was the temple of God the Holy Spirit.”
Apparently, there’s a misunderstanding here.
When I said they took him literally, I was referring to the fact that the Pharisees thought Jesus was talking about literally rebuilding the physical temple when He was, obviously, speaking about His body.
Which, BTW, there is no rebuilt temple (or third temple) mentioned in the NT because Christ is the Temple.
It is interesting, and unexplainable, that the NT writers did not mention so central a notion as a rebuilt temple at the end of time in order to justify the futurist understanding of prophecy. After all, Jesus made it quite clear in Matt 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, that the physical temple would be utterly destroyed within a generation of His ascension to the Father. But the apostles never explained that the temple would be rebuilt and the Roman empire revived in order to once again satisfy these prophecies.
Not one mention and so many opportunities, such as the book of Hebrews where the priesthood and sacrifices are discussed extensively. They consistently turn away from the expectation of the old physical nation, and concentrate on the spiritual nation, the Church, the true temple of God. In fact Hebrews explains that the physical was temporary, passing away, and merely served as a pattern of the eternal in heaven (chapter 8).
Curious. You get the impression that the apostles and NT writers had an entirely different view of God’s salvation program that modern day futurists.
I think it is best not to quote or paraphrase from Hannegraaff.
Why? It was a good thought. We should be praying that all forms of spiritual error, including dispensationalism, will pass away, and that truth will triumph.
“We should be praying that all forms of spiritual error, including dispensationalism, will pass away, and that truth will triumph.”
Exactly right.
Regardless of your views on Hanegraaff, it was still a good thought. Dispensationalism needs to be eradicated from the Christian Church.
All I know is Hanegraaff’s organization, CRI, is a member of ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability) and wouldn’t be a member if he couldn’t meet all ECFA standards. You can go to ecfa.org and look up CRI for yourself.
Allegations, investigations — unless or until someone is actually found guilty, I don’t think it’s good practice to throw another Christian under the bus. It will all shake out and then we’ll see.
But topcat is right. It doesn’t matter who made the statement; the fact is it’s a good one. We should pray for the truth to triumph over error, both for ourselves and throughout the Church.
You guys are always throwing dispensationalists under the bus.
All I know is that I would not trust Hank Hannegraff as far as I could throw him. IMO he is a snake oil salesman. He came to our church as a guest speaker one night and he spent the whole evening trying to sell the congregation his "memory system." He reminded my of the OxyClean guy. I felt like I needed a bath after that presentation.
Challenging their presuppositions and faulty interpretations is not what I would call "throwing dispensationalists under the bus".
We’re trying to offer them the truth, and get them to admit their faulty hermeneutical approach has far-reaching effects, and that it is not too late to get on board with a more biblical eschatology.
If you don’t care for Hannegraff, that’s OK by me. Truth does not rise and fall with any one man. If we judged all dispensationalists by the nut-jobs on TBN, then you would have a point.
Challenging those interpretations and insisting that they "need to be eradicated from the Christian Church" are wholly different things.
Tell me, TC are there any dispensationalists that you would NOT throw under the bus?
I may be offline for a week or so, so take your time before you respond.
Personal experience is, like a picture, worth a thousand words.
As continually repeated, dispensation is a biblical word. And Ephesians 1:10 is the expression of it that gives rise to it being used as an "economy" or style/ordering of an era.
There is everything biblical about that concept IF the Bible does demonstrate that there are unique divisions in history that clearly should be viewed as a whole.
As a way of ordering thought and biblical history, who, for example, would argue that The Garden of Eden was not a unique whole?
At one level it's pointless to argue with those who simply don't see what I see. We must have different eyes. For my part, I cannot deny what my eyes clearly see.
Did you catch the word “dispensationalism” (as opposed to “dispensationalists) that needs to be eradicated from the Church?
Yes, we know. What you have been unable to demonstrate is that the way the Bible uses the word is identical with how dispensationalists use the word.
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"
Ridiculous comment and a demonstration that you are uninterested in dealing with the biblical data.
Let me ask a simple question:
Was the Garden of Eden a unique period of time in the bible?
Yes or no will suffice.
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.