|
|
Post by makesends on Oct 20, 2022 18:04:17 GMT -8
My response to this line; Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology This does not mean that God has changed the principle of his salvation. Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith. That is simply not true in Dispensational Premillennialism. I will address this in greater detail in a separate op, but this matter of salvation is one of the core doctrines of Christianity compromised by Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists teach a two-method soteriology! There are two, not one means of salvation. They protest this criticism declaring they teach salvation by grace but the details of DPism prove exactly the oppositie and in every defense I have ever read they ignore what I'm about to post. Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith, but that's not what you just posted. Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith and it teaches anyone can come to salvation at any time, even Jews. That is the part they get correct. BUT.... the eschatology of Dispensationalism teaches a series of events MUST and will occur prior to Christ coming to live on earth and rule and thereby bring the Jews to salvation. The list of events varies from dispensationalist to dispensationalist but among the events they say must occur is 1) the establishment of a new state of Israel (which they believe was accomplished in 1948), 2) the restoration of the geographic boundaries of Israel, 3) the rebuilding of the stone temple, 4) the reconstitution of the Levitical priesthood, 5) the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, 6) the re-establishment of the Mosaic Law, 7) the tribulation and its faithful survival. There are other events, such as the events involving the lawless man, the AoD, and the antichrist but those are not viewed as events the Jews enact. Here's why this is a problem soteriologically: if a Jew in Israel must first have a country established, land secured, a temple built, returning priesthood, animal sacrifices, and follow the law in order to be brought to salvation in Christ then that is a works-based salvation! The New Testament teaches vigorously against this. No one needs to be a member of any earthly nation to be saved. No one needs to have a temple built to be saved. No one needs a priest or a dead animal to be saved. Not Jews, not Israelis, not Gentiles, not anyone. Not according to Dispensationalism. According to Dispensationalism, there is a salvation that is possible simply by grace through faith.... but there is also a salvation available for the Jews living in the last days dispensation requiring a series of events before salvation comes to them, and that is NOT something Christianity has always taught soteriologically. It is a works based soteriology. No, this is completely incorrect. Salvation has always been BY grace. Salvation is by grace, t hrough faith, for works. Salvation by grace. Salvation through faith. Created in Christ for good works God has planned in advance for us to perform. Ephesians 2:4-10
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. By grace, through faith, for works. THAT is Christian soteriology. THAT is what salvation has ALWAYS been. Dispensationalists get this wrong quite often. You have just demonstrated one of the many problems in Dispensationalism - once again! It wasn't intended. It just came out unawares in the defense of Dispensationalism. Justification by faith is conflated with salvation by faith, when the two are not identical. So, we see Dispensationalism teaches bad soteriology in at least three different ways. It is a new and radically different theology. Not only is it new, and not only is it different, but it is irreconcilable with historical Christianity. The Dispensational Premillennialist eschatology ends up creating conflicts with long held and well-established soteriology of salvation by grace alone. Makes me think of the Dispensationalism I was taught in missionary kid's school. I remembering even then, brought up in a semi-Arminian, semi-Methodist, very Fundamentalist atmosphere —but with a lot of Bible reading and memorization— wondering how in the world they could believe that the old Testament Saints were saved and their sins forgiven by the sacrificial system. One of my huge joys at finally deciding they were wrong —by grace alone. |
|
|
|
Post by makesends on Oct 20, 2022 19:18:12 GMT -8
This is written to Josheb. I can't find the post in which it was written to answer it, but copied it from the summary.
"No one in the 4000 years before Jesus came to die for us and wash away our sins and give us his Spirit could be a son of God. He could not be a tripartite person, soul, body, and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Why, if for no other logical reason? because Jesus is THE FIRSTBORN SON OF GOD FROM THE DEAD. He is not preeminent according to your theology. The OT believers were justified by faith in what God said to them, but they were not born again. The second birth is a NT doctrine and is accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection."
I'm not sure which part of what I quoted here is your belief and what is what you say theirs is. Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again? Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)? Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God? Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God?
I realize this is off-topic, and if you wish to ignore it, ok. But I am genuinely curious, as I wholeheartedly agree with most of what I have read you to say, while this feels more than a little, well, off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2022 3:29:32 GMT -8
This is written to Josheb. I can't find the post in which it was written to answer it, but copied it from the summary. "No one in the 4000 years before Jesus came to die for us and wash away our sins and give us his Spirit could be a son of God. He could not be a tripartite person, soul, body, and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Why, if for no other logical reason? because Jesus is THE FIRSTBORN SON OF GOD FROM THE DEAD. He is not preeminent according to your theology. The OT believers were justified by faith in what God said to them, but they were not born again. The second birth is a NT doctrine and is accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection." I'm not sure which part of what I quoted here is your belief and what is what you say theirs is. Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again? Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)? Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God? Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God? I realize this is off-topic, and if you wish to ignore it, ok. But I am genuinely curious, as I wholeheartedly agree with most of what I have read you to say, while this feels more than a little, well, off. It is off-topic, and my inclination is to ignore it, but it speaks of another problem within Dispensationalism that I will address in separate ops: the failure within Dispensationalism to let the New Testament render the Old Testament, so I'll make note of it and move on. The New Testament tells us the gospel was preached to at least two of the Old Testament figures (Abraham and David), the events and practices of the OT were foreshadowing events that spoke about future realities coming to fruition during the NT era, the righteous are ( always) those who live by faith (regardless of "dispensation"), those in the OT who awaited the promise of God are made complete in the heirs of Christ, and much more. These are things the Bible actually explicitly, literally, states. All of these statements provide continuity between covenants, ages, and everything else in scripture where Dispensationalism denies it, and these things have been understood as the orthodox teaching of scripture by the rest of Christendom for 20 centuries. It's a new and radically different theology. |
|
|
|
Post by charlie24 on Oct 21, 2022 12:57:37 GMT -8
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different TheologyIs something bad simply because it is new? No! So, let's just clear out that matter from the outset. My argument isn't that something new is bad. If that were true then no change in thought, doctrine, or practice would be possible and the fact of history is the Church has been changing since its inception. Were change to be precluded no evolution and no progress would be possible. That is not the problem per se with Dispensationalism. The problem begins because Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man. I'm gonna repeat that twice with two different emphases. Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man. Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man. Any source on the history of Dispensationalism will cite John Darby as the originator of Dispensationalism. Even the Dispensationalists will attribute the origins of the theology to Darby. This is true of Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, etc. No one disagrees. Some Dispensationalists will appeal to veins of thought in the 1700s leading to or finding fruition in Darby but examination of those sources will readily show those men were NOT thinking as Darby did. Dispensational Premillennialists (DP) also like to appeal to the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) to show the mention of "dispensation" runs from the Bible through the ECFs to Darby but anyone who bothers to read the ECFs readily and easily recognizes Darby's use of "dispensation" was radically different than the New Testament writers or the ECFs. Dispensationalists do the exact same thing with premillennialism. Historic Premillennialism is substantively different than Dispensational Premillennialism. The former does not consider Israel relevant to Christian eschatology. Nothing in the entire history of Christian eschatology considered Israel significant simply because there was no Israel by the end of the first century. Darby invented that. Historical Premillennialism is a post-tribulation view, it holds no significance to temples or the Levitical priesthood, nor does it divide the Second Advent up the way DPism does. Darby literally invented all of this. John Darby invented a new hermeneutic, a method of reading scripture, that was built on three premises: 1) a literal reading of scripture, 2) a distinction between Israel and the Church, and 3) the existence of dispensations as a means of parsing biblical history. Each of these methods was a radical departure from mainstream, orthodox, and historical Christianity in thought, doctrine, and practice. Darby emphasized the "grammatical-historical" hermeneutic that was rising in prominence during his time, but he did things with it radically different than the rest of Christendom. He emphasized the Old Testament over the New Testament, believing God has TWO, not one purpose in creation: one purpose for the Jews and another entirely different purpose for the Christian. What this means practically speaking is the New Testament use of the Old Testament is neglected or ignored. A discontinuity is asserted. Completely new and different than anything preceding Darby. An example of this would be the promise by God of a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6). Darby would read that as a promise only to Israel, the fulfillment of which must be literal. The New Testament, however, tells us the promise is all already fulfilled by those who obey Jesus and are sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 2:9)! More on this will be addressed in my op on the inconsistency and hypocrisy of Dispensationalism but for now the point is that the New Testament writers' use of the Old Testament is ignored or neglected in Dispensationalism. The common dissent is that other Christians "spiritualize" or "allegorize" scripture and that is wrong..... even though that is exactly what the New Testament writers did. So the proper hermeneutic - no matter what else it asserts - starts with the handling of scripture in a manner consistent with the writers of scripture themselves! Darby ignored this. I forget the tile of the thread (I'll try to track it don and link this post to it) but this matter of separation between Israel and the Church was recently asserted to say Christians do not have a covenant with God! This is a radical departure from everything core to Christianity for 20 centuries! Only Dispensationalism asserts this. The reasons this is important is because if Dispensationalism is true and correct then 20 centuries of mainstream, orthodox, historical Christianity is wrong. Christianity has NOT been orthodox. EVER! This comes out in other ways I will detail further in other ops on the six significant problems in Dispensationalism but for now I'll simply outline them briefly. If the Jews must be restored to their original covenant promised land with all its promised boundaries, AND they must have another temple, AND they must have a restored priesthood, AND a return to animal sacrifices (and all the other events occurring before the millennial reign asserted by Dispensational Premillennialism) then.... 1) that is a works-based soteriolgoy of works+plus+grace and NOT historical Christian soteriology of salvation by grace through faith for works, and 2) it fundamentally changes the doctrine of imminence (Christ can come at any time). Darbyism arose during the "restoration movement" of the 1800s. There was a huge movement of diverse sectarianism wherein all those sects emphasized three perspectives: 1) the Church is corrupt and in need of restoration, 2) Jesus is coming back real soon so the time for restoration is now, and 3) that sect is the right sect, the True Church, and they alone know how to the restored Church should look. These sects included (but are not limited to) the Campbellites, Millerites, and subsequently the CoC, SDA, Brethren, JWs, and LDS. Darby was originally Anglican. He was educated at Westminster and Trinity. He became a member of the Plymouth Brethren because of his view the Church was corrupt and he thought the Brethren movement more orthodox but within a brief span of time he judged the Plymouth Brethren apostate and formed his own sect he called, "Exclusive Brethren"! He was right and everyone else corrupt. The reason this is important is because this too is a radical departure from historic Christianity and the view the Church is holy despite its flaws. An honest appraisal of the Church, one firmly rooted in the New Testament example, recognizes the messiness of the Church and acknowledging the precedents of places like Corinth and Ephesus. As a direct consequence of this belief in a corrupt Church Darby espoused a complete separation of all true Christians from secular society. Christians should not hold political or other public office. The two domains are separate and irreconcilable. Not only does this completely contradict the premise of God's people as the light of the world and God's sovereignty in ALL aspects of human existence, but it led to Christians withdrawing from society to the point that a century later Christians had no one to blame but themselves for God being removed from the public schools, and the government being given/taking a messianic role in western society. Keep in mind the restoration movement sects occurred during the same time Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, and Freud were growing in influence. The views of these men grew while a large swath of the Church withdrew. The irony! The restoration contributed to the very things they sought to avoid! And so Jesus was gonna come back any day because the world was going to hell in a handbasket and the Church would be raptured away so as not to suffer the tribulation that would be worse than anything anyone had ever seen before or since. The problem is it never happened! The Adventists almost melted down when when William Miller's prediction Jesus would return in 1844 did not happen. Not a single one of these apocalyptic movements was correct. Not only were their views a radical departure from long held well-established Christian eschatologies, they were all wrong!!! So why did they grow? The short answer is their departure from creedalism and their emphasis on experientialism, and the fact Christian history and doctrine is no longer taught in much of Christendom. The substance of that change deserves a separate thread because it begins with Wesley's methodism and the ways his teachings were abused in the 1800s. Darbyism, or Dispensationalism, is a new and radically different theology than anything anywhere previously existing in historic, mainstream, orthodox Christendom and it is so radically different that if Dispensationalism is true and correct then much of Christianity is not true and incorrect. The two are irreconcilable in many ways. (my apologies for the length, but this is only a portion of the many differences between DPism and orthodox Christianity)It seems I found this one a bit late. I think there may be some confusion. Dispensationalism teaches that God is working individually with the Church and Israel, but for the same purpose. The Church Age is bringing in the Harvest primarily for the Gentiles, with Israel on the back burner so to speak. When this ends at the rapture/resurrection then God turns to deal with Israel. This takes place and is the main reason for the Great Tribulation, when "all of Israel will be saved" as Paul said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2022 16:35:20 GMT -8
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different TheologyIs something bad simply because it is new? No! So, let's just clear out that matter from the outset. My argument isn't that something new is bad. If that were true then no change in thought, doctrine, or practice would be possible and the fact of history is the Church has been changing since its inception. Were change to be precluded no evolution and no progress would be possible. That is not the problem per se with Dispensationalism. The problem begins because Dispensationalism was literally invented by one man.............. charlie24 said:It seems I found this one a bit late.
I think there may be some confusion. Dispensationalism teaches that God is working individually with the Church and Israel, but for the same purpose.
The Church Age is bringing in the Harvest primarily for the Gentiles, with Israel on the back burner so to speak.
When this ends at the rapture/resurrection then God turns to deal with Israel. This takes place and is the main reason for the Great Tribulation, when "all of Israel will be saved" as Paul said. There is no confusion, unless perhaps in noticing this op is specifically on the newness and difference of Dispensationalism in comparison to historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity over the past 2000 years. A lack of knowledge pertaining to all that Dispensationalism teaches may prove applicable, too. For example, Here are a few things the former president of Dallas Theological Seminary and his generation's leading Dispensational teacher, Charles Ryrie said in his book, "Dispensationalism," "In Dispensationalism the [proper unifying] principle [of a philosophy of history] is theological or eschatological or doxological, for the differing dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships, which culminate in history with the millennial glory. This is not to say that dispensationalism fails to give salvation its proper place in the purpose of God. If the goal of history is the earthly Millennium and if the glory of God will be manifest at that time in the presence of Christ in a way hitherto unknown, then the unifying principle of dispensationalism may be said to be eschatological (if viewed from the goal toward which we are moving) or theological (if viewed from the self-revelation of God in every dispensation) or doxological (if viewed from the perspective of the overall manifestation of glory of God)." Sounds good upon first read, doesn't it? The problem is the only part that has been held historically by the Church is that God works all things to His glory. Prior to Dispensational Premillennialism the Church never held to the beliefs, - God manifests His character in differing dispensations,
- The differing dispensations culminate with the millennial dispensation (and its glory),
- Soteriology is theologically subordinate to eschatology,
- The goal of history is the millennium.
All of that is new. If anyone reads the book it will be noted Ryrie does not ever say these things are new positions. Here is something else Ryrie teaches Dispensationalism teaches about God's purpose, "A stewardship [dispensation] may end at an appointed time (Gal. 4:2). In this reference the end of the stewardship came because of a different purpose being introduced. This reference also shows that a dispensation is connected with time." Is that, in fact, what Galatians 4:2 states? Galatians 4:1-7 NASNow I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.Galatians 4:1-7 KJVNow I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.Galatians 4:1-7 ESVI mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.So we see by examining the scripture cited Ryrie has taken some liberty with the text (and violated his own hermeneutic of literal reading). Because of a noun conjugation of oikonomia in the one verse, Ryrie has assumed a dispensation where none is stated, and he has further generalized from this one mention attributes applicable to all dispensations. This is not only a new way of approaching scripture but al new views themselves. It's all the more ironic since the passage is soteriological, not eschatological, and it doesn't culminate with the millennium but with the fullness of time. Furthermore, if there were more than one dispensation being discussed it would be that of slavery to sin verses slavery to righteousness, not one of the seven dispensations asserted by Dispensationalism. However, my main point is that Dispensationalism teaches there is a different purpose for each dispensation. That is not something historical Christianity has ever taught until Dispensationalism developed. Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. God dispenses or administers its affairs according to His will in various stages.... and these stages mark off distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose. Dispensationalism calls these different "economies" "dispensations." So we understand from this Dispensationalism does agree with historical Christianity in believing God has a "total purpose," but they part ways with the rest of Christianity is believing there are completely unrelated differing purposes to each economy or dispensation. Ryries quotes the Methodist Episcopalian (and partial-preterist) theologian Milton Terry to justify his view, "With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or some great purpose of God is brought to light." Ryrie then asserts these "series of generations" is the basis of a dispensation. Scripture itself does not teach any of this. It all began with the restoration movement of the 19th century and John Darby in particular. Most importnat, most relevant to your post, and germane to this op is that Dispensationalism teaches, "God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purposes for the Church than He does about the other groups." Citing the Baptist, Daniel Fuller's book, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism," Ryrie states, "the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout all eternity." Ryrie the quotes the founder of Dallas theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer. the man who almost single-handedly saw to the institutionalization of academic Dispensational Premillennialism, in his book also titled, " Dispensationalism," "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven and heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity." Two purposes, not one. Two purposes that last for all eternity. So anyone reading these posts as a Dispensationalist suddenly finding something taught by Dispensationalism to which they don't happen to subscribe..... it does not mean this op is wrong. It means you hold a view somewhat different than mainstream Dispensationalism as taught by the leading Dispensationalist. I have just provided concrete evidence that three of the leading teachers - ones recognized by all other leading Dispensationalist of our time as preeminant in this theology - three leading Dispensational leaders all agree: God has two completely different purposes and those two completely different purposes are eternal. That is not something historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity ever taught prior to the development of Dispensational Premillennialism. So, chalrie24, let me as your brother in Christ encourage you to examine the scriptures anew examining them for what they do actually state and not what Dispensationalism teaches the scriptures say. I mentioned Chafer and Ryrie. The two men wrote separate books but both men titled them "Dispensationalism," and I highly recommend them if a deeper understanding of what Dispensational Premillennialism teaches is desired. Of the two, I find Chafer's the better of the two and recommend if far above everything else I've read from the Dispensationalists (and I have surveyed the entire 200 years in near chronological order). If such an endeavor is enjoined then I highly recommend doing so with Bible in hand and open, so you examine the scriptures as they are quoted, as I did here with Galatians 4:2. You will find where the Dispensationalists practiced their own hermeneutic and where they didn't; where they relied on God's word exactly as written where a Dispensationally eisegetic interpretation is being asserted. I intend, when I have the time and energy, to write a separate op on that specific matter, but I recommend the endeavor for anyone interested in Dispensational theology. Anyone reading the source material will learn Dispensational Premillennialism is a new and radically different theology. It was invented in the 1800s by John Darby and it teaches things not previously, held in Christian thought, doctrine, or practice. And charlie24 , this op is not a moratorium on all that DPism teaches so I will ask you NOT to bring a variety of positions into the thread unless first acknowledging their newness and difference. This op is simply and solely on those two aspects of Dispensationalism. This op is one of six I plan on posting so you can read through this op HERE where I list six significant problems within Dispensationalism. This op is not about Israel, a Church age, the rapture, or anything else Dispensationalists like to impose on others' threads. I intend to keep my ops on topic. Anything specifically on the newness and radical difference of Dispensationalism is invited. Take everything else to another op, please. (my apologies for the length) |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 22, 2022 6:06:47 GMT -8
Oct 20, 2022 19:18:12 GMT -8 makesends said: This is written to Josheb. I can't find the post in which it was written to answer it, but copied it from the summary. "No one in the 4000 years before Jesus came to die for us and wash away our sins and give us his Spirit could be a son of God. He could not be a tripartite person, soul, body, and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Why, if for no other logical reason? because Jesus is THE FIRSTBORN SON OF GOD FROM THE DEAD. He is not preeminent according to your theology. The OT believers were justified by faith in what God said to them, but they were not born again. The second birth is a NT doctrine and is accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection." I'm not sure which part of what I quoted here is your belief and what is what you say theirs is. Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again? Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)? Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God? Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God? I realize this is off-topic, and if you wish to ignore it, ok. But I am genuinely curious, as I wholeheartedly agree with most of what I have read you to say, while this feels more than a little, well, off. __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thanks for your questions. I think they are excellent questions and I will take some time to answer them and I will be asking you to use your God given logic, reason and will to consider what the scriptures actually teach us. God makes himself known to believers today by his scriptures, rightly divided. Scriptures are written words. Therefore one must believe his words. For instance, when the scriptures declare that Jesus Christ is his "first begotten son of God from the dead", and this occurred in the beginning of the 5th millennium of human history at his resurrection, do not try to convince me that it is not true just because someone says it is not, or that someone does not understand it. God said it and I am going to believe it and now my mind is open for God to teach me what this means and I am not likely to be deceived by men who have too much self righteousness and pride in their own opinions. Here is another thing to take into account that is not done often on these forums; Take a look; 2 Tim 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. All scripture is written for you but not all scripture is written to you specifically. With that is mind I will answer your questions dispensationally. Here goes ____________________________________________________ 1) Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again? 2) Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)? 3) Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God? 4) Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God? Question #1 - Yes, I believe the OT saints were not born again. One of the subjects that I have mentioned to prove that God has a dispensational structure to his revelation of himself from the very beginning is because of his creation of man, Adam, in his, God's, own image. His creation was with intelligence, reason, and will. He was a soul and the Spirit of God, and his body was a physical tabernacle in which the invisible dwelt. The soul, the spirit of man, and the Spirit of God, comes from above, from God, but the body is of the earth and is formed in the natural, from the dust. He is a trinity, one in three and three in one. This is the image of God and all things that God creates has this signature upon it. Through the soul, man has self awareness and personal identity. Through the Spirit of God, he has communion and fellowship with God and the holiness of God. Through the body, he has interaction with other men and abilities in the physical realm. It is important because of this: Ps 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Ge 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. The purpose of God for man is in the physical and on the earth, and ruling the earth for him, and it will finally happen through the man, Christ Jesus, when all men in his kingdom has the Spirit, and sin, that was introduced into the human consciousness by Adam, is put away. Speaking of Jesus the scriptures say this: Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. That has not happened yet, but it will. Believe the words. The purpose of God is not thwarted by men's rebellion.The trinitarian nature of man must be restored to all in his kingdom before he will rule over them. This is what Jesus meant when he said to Nicodemus that a man must be born again to enter his kingdom. So, now you can see that it is a prerequisite and when Jesus comes to establish his kingdom, all rebels will be destroyed at his coming and only those born again will enter it. Dispensationalism believes the words of scripture and rightly divides them. So, bottom line here. Sin, one sin, destroyed the image of God in Adam and all who are born of his flesh into his family are in his image and has no power over sin that now reigns in the world as a sovereign. Ro 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. Logic 101. His life is the Spirit. I have believed the words and given them to you in comments above that he says. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. Adam chose to sin and die and therefore all his offspring sinned because they did not have power against it but those who live are many, not all, because one must decide to receive the free gift, which is defined in this passage as atonement and reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ. They must receive his Spirit by faith. So the answer to question one in a nutshell is that all before the cross were in the image of Adam, soul and body. Because of the cross where Jesus poured out his Spirit so we might be saved, renewed into the image of God by the Spirit, and God gave him to man as a free gift, and the image of God is restored through Jesus Christ and men are born of God into his family and are now predestinated to be fully saved when we are given a new body like the body of the glorified Jesus at the translation of the church, the body of Christ. Finally, OT saints were "justified" by believing what God said to them and their faith was imputed to them for righteousness, but they did not appear in the presence of God when they died. They waited in paradise until the blood of Christ was shed, that alone could wash their sins away, and they were given the Spirit and the tripartite nature. These were risen from the dead after the cross and are the firstfriuits of the resurrec tion, the resurrection of saints being in a three part division, 1) the firstfruits, the OT saints, 2) the main harvest, the church, and 3) the gleanings, the tribulation saints.Then the kingdom of Christ. I will be back to answer your other questions, 2 thru 4, later. Dispensational teaching of the scriptures begins in Gen 1:1. Tit 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Logic says a man with sin in him cannot also have the Spirit of God in him. So does the scriptures. |
|
|
|
Post by charlie24 on Oct 22, 2022 14:52:13 GMT -8
There is no confusion, unless perhaps in noticing this op is specifically on the newness and difference of Dispensationalism in comparison to historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity over the past 2000 years. A lack of knowledge pertaining to all that Dispensationalism teaches may prove applicable, too. For example, Here are a few things the former president of Dallas Theological Seminary and his generation's leading Dispensational teacher, Charles Ryrie said in his book, "Dispensationalism," "In Dispensationalism the [proper unifying] principle [of a philosophy of history] is theological or eschatological or doxological, for the differing dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships, which culminate in history with the millennial glory. This is not to say that dispensationalism fails to give salvation its proper place in the purpose of God. If the goal of history is the earthly Millennium and if the glory of God will be manifest at that time in the presence of Christ in a way hitherto unknown, then the unifying principle of dispensationalism may be said to be eschatological (if viewed from the goal toward which we are moving) or theological (if viewed from the self-revelation of God in every dispensation) or doxological (if viewed from the perspective of the overall manifestation of glory of God)." Sounds good upon first read, doesn't it? The problem is the only part that has been held historically by the Church is that God works all things to His glory. Prior to Dispensational Premillennialism the Church never held to the beliefs, - God manifests His character in differing dispensations,
- The differing dispensations culminate with the millennial dispensation (and its glory),
- Soteriology is theologically subordinate to eschatology,
- The goal of history is the millennium.
All of that is new. If anyone reads the book it will be noted Ryrie does not ever say these things are new positions. Here is something else Ryrie teaches Dispensationalism teaches about God's purpose, "A stewardship [dispensation] may end at an appointed time (Gal. 4:2). In this reference the end of the stewardship came because of a different purpose being introduced. This reference also shows that a dispensation is connected with time." Is that, in fact, what Galatians 4:2 states? Galatians 4:1-7 NASNow I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.Galatians 4:1-7 KJVNow I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.Galatians 4:1-7 ESVI mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.So we see by examining the scripture cited Ryrie has taken some liberty with the text (and violated his own hermeneutic of literal reading). Because of a noun conjugation of oikonomia in the one verse, Ryrie has assumed a dispensation where none is stated, and he has further generalized from this one mention attributes applicable to all dispensations. This is not only a new way of approaching scripture but al new views themselves. It's all the more ironic since the passage is soteriological, not eschatological, and it doesn't culminate with the millennium but with the fullness of time. Furthermore, if there were more than one dispensation being discussed it would be that of slavery to sin verses slavery to righteousness, not one of the seven dispensations asserted by Dispensationalism. However, my main point is that Dispensationalism teaches there is a different purpose for each dispensation. That is not something historical Christianity has ever taught until Dispensationalism developed. Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. God dispenses or administers its affairs according to His will in various stages.... and these stages mark off distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose. Dispensationalism calls these different "economies" "dispensations." So we understand from this Dispensationalism does agree with historical Christianity in believing God has a "total purpose," but they part ways with the rest of Christianity is believing there are completely unrelated differing purposes to each economy or dispensation. Ryries quotes the Methodist Episcopalian (and partial-preterist) theologian Milton Terry to justify his view, "With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or some great purpose of God is brought to light." Ryrie then asserts these "series of generations" is the basis of a dispensation. Scripture itself does not teach any of this. It all began with the restoration movement of the 19th century and John Darby in particular. Most importnat, most relevant to your post, and germane to this op is that Dispensationalism teaches, "God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purposes for the Church than He does about the other groups." Citing the Baptist, Daniel Fuller's book, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism," Ryrie states, "the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout all eternity." Ryrie the quotes the founder of Dallas theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer. the man who almost single-handedly saw to the institutionalization of academic Dispensational Premillennialism, in his book also titled, " Dispensationalism," "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven and heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity." Two purposes, not one. Two purposes that last for all eternity. So anyone reading these posts as a Dispensationalist suddenly finding something taught by Dispensationalism to which they don't happen to subscribe..... it does not mean this op is wrong. It means you hold a view somewhat different than mainstream Dispensationalism as taught by the leading Dispensationalist. I have just provided concrete evidence that three of the leading teachers - ones recognized by all other leading Dispensationalist of our time as preeminant in this theology - three leading Dispensational leaders all agree: God has two completely different purposes and those two completely different purposes are eternal. That is not something historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity ever taught prior to the development of Dispensational Premillennialism. So, chalrie24, let me as your brother in Christ encourage you to examine the scriptures anew examining them for what they do actually state and not what Dispensationalism teaches the scriptures say. I mentioned Chafer and Ryrie. The two men wrote separate books but both men titled them "Dispensationalism," and I highly recommend them if a deeper understanding of what Dispensational Premillennialism teaches is desired. Of the two, I find Chafer's the better of the two and recommend if far above everything else I've read from the Dispensationalists (and I have surveyed the entire 200 years in near chronological order). If such an endeavor is enjoined then I highly recommend doing so with Bible in hand and open, so you examine the scriptures as they are quoted, as I did here with Galatians 4:2. You will find where the Dispensationalists practiced their own hermeneutic and where they didn't; where they relied on God's word exactly as written where a Dispensationally eisegetic interpretation is being asserted. I intend, when I have the time and energy, to write a separate op on that specific matter, but I recommend the endeavor for anyone interested in Dispensational theology. Anyone reading the source material will learn Dispensational Premillennialism is a new and radically different theology. It was invented in the 1800s by John Darby and it teaches things not previously, held in Christian thought, doctrine, or practice. And charlie24 , this op is not a moratorium on all that DPism teaches so I will ask you NOT to bring a variety of positions into the thread unless first acknowledging their newness and difference. This op is simply and solely on those two aspects of Dispensationalism. This op is one of six I plan on posting so you can read through this op HERE where I list six significant problems within Dispensationalism. This op is not about Israel, a Church age, the rapture, or anything else Dispensationalists like to impose on others' threads. I intend to keep my ops on topic. Anything specifically on the newness and radical difference of Dispensationalism is invited. Take everything else to another op, please. (my apologies for the length)I don't know who these people are or what they teach, but I know what I've been taught about Dispensationalism over the past 50 years. There are 7 major dispensations in history where each time God gave more knowledge to man. It is the knowledge of the Christ that began with animal sacrifices in the Garden. From these time periods of progressive knowledge, certain truths are established. For example, by the time we come to Abraham we notice "he believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness." This is justification by faith some 2000 years before Paul preached it in his epistles. It goes on and on, granted some will disagree, but many just simply don't understand. For the most part dispensations are a way measure time the way God sees it. It can become complicated if you don't have proper teaching on the subject. No doubt there are some new theories and new ways of looking at it, which I ignore. I'm old school and I will remain old school, give me the old paths that Jeremiah and Isaiah spoke of. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 7:15:43 GMT -8
There is no confusion, unless perhaps in noticing this op is specifically on the newness and difference of Dispensationalism in comparison to historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity over the past 2000 years. A lack of knowledge pertaining to all that Dispensationalism teaches may prove applicable, too. For example, here are a few things the former president of Dallas Theological Seminary and his generation's leading Dispensational teacher, Charles Ryrie said in his book, "Dispensationalism,"..... , but I know what I've been taught about Dispensationalism over the past 50 years. That is a problem. it is a quite common problem. That does not change the facts in evidence. Nor does it prove the op incorrect. If you are a Dispensationalist who has studied Dispensational Premillennialism then you should know what John Darby, Cyrus Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Michael Vlach and other leading Dispensationalists teach. These are the men who taught Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, David Jeremiah, Ron Rhodes, Mark Hitchcock. and others who wrote the more popularized versions found in the Christian bookstores. Not knowing what these men taught/teach is like a Catholic not knowing their Catechism or a Calvinist who has never read Calvin or the Westminster Confession. One of the secondary purposes of these ops is to help folks, even the dispensationalists among us, better understand Dispensationalism and what it teaches. And I again remind everyone this op is simply and sole about the newness and difference of Dispensational Premillennialism. Off-topic posts will be ignored. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 7:17:38 GMT -8
There is no confusion, unless perhaps in noticing this op is specifically on the newness and difference of Dispensationalism in comparison to historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity over the past 2000 years. A lack of knowledge pertaining to all that Dispensationalism teaches may prove applicable, too... .There are 7 major dispensations in history where each time God gave more knowledge to man. When was that belief first taught in Christian history? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 7:20:44 GMT -8
There is no confusion, unless perhaps in noticing this op is specifically on the newness and difference of Dispensationalism in comparison to historical, orthodox, mainstream Christianity over the past 2000 years. A lack of knowledge pertaining to all that Dispensationalism teaches may prove applicable, too. For the most part dispensations are a way measure time the way God sees it. When was that position first taught in Christian history? |
|
|
|
Post by charlie24 on Oct 23, 2022 9:26:36 GMT -8
I don't know who these people are or what they teach, but I know what I've been taught about Dispensationalism over the past 50 years. That is a problem. it is a quite common problem. That does not change the facts in evidence. Nor does it prove the op incorrect. If you are a Dispensationalist who has studied Dispensational Premillennialism then you should know what John Darby, Cyrus Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Michael Vlach and other leading Dispensationalists teach. These are the men who taught Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, David Jeremiah, Ron Rhodes, Mark Hitchcock. and others who wrote the more popularized versions found in the Christian bookstores. Not knowing what these men taught/teach is like a Catholic not knowing their Catechism or a Calvinist who has never read Calvin or the Westminster Confession. One of the secondary purposes of these ops is to help folks, even the dispensationalists among us, better understand Dispensationalism and what it teaches. And I again remind everyone this op is simply and sole about the newness and difference of Dispensational Premillennialism. Off-topic posts will be ignored. Ok, I probably couldn't add anything of value anyway. |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 23, 2022 10:24:15 GMT -8
This is written to Josheb. I can't find the post in which it was written to answer it, but copied it from the summary. "No one in the 4000 years before Jesus came to die for us and wash away our sins and give us his Spirit could be a son of God. He could not be a tripartite person, soul, body, and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Why, if for no other logical reason? because Jesus is THE FIRSTBORN SON OF GOD FROM THE DEAD. He is not preeminent according to your theology. The OT believers were justified by faith in what God said to them, but they were not born again. The second birth is a NT doctrine and is accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection." I'm not sure which part of what I quoted here is your belief and what is what you say theirs is. Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again? Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)? Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God? Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God? I realize this is off-topic, and if you wish to ignore it, ok. But I am genuinely curious, as I wholeheartedly agree with most of what I have read you to say, while this feels more than a little, well, off.
1) Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again?
2) Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)?
3) Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God?
4) Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God?
I will briefly answer question #2 in this comment as I continue to expound on the wisdom and logic of dispensational thinking.
2) Are they (Old Testament saints) not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)?
You seem to be drawing a conclusion that OT saints will never have the Spirit of God and enter into the kingdom. That is not what the scriptures teach. It simply means that no one can have the Spirit of God while they have sin in them. Logic: if it could have been so then certainly Jesus would not have had to die for our sins. Why did he have to die for our sins to redeem us? Because his blood was the only cleansing agent for sin. No one can be saved unless Jesus Christ would have been willing to become a man and live a perfect God pleasing life and then shed his precious blood to wash away our sins. But washing away our sins is the negative part; He is now able to renew us to the trinitarian nature by giving us his holy Spirit, thus making us in the image of God through himself as we take on his image, soul, body, and the Holy Ghost as our very person-hood.
Ga 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (He did not shed the Holy Ghost on us through Noah or Abraham, or Moses). Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
So then, when will the OT saints receive forgiveness of sins and have the trinitarian nature renewed. It is before the beginning of the church of Jesus Christ but after the resurrection. It is at their resurrection, called by God the children of the resurrection. They are the firstfruits of the three part resurrection as typified in the spring feasts of Israel, the Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of first-fruits, and the festival thereof.
Ex 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Lu 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Justified OT saints go to paradise, one of the three sections of Hell in the center of the earth, awaiting the Spirit.
Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into (1) Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And (2) in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is (3) a great gulf fixed (the bottomless pit): so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
MT 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
The FORBEARANCE of God on behalf of OT saints who he had justified by faith.
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
And here;
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
The OT saints are resurrected but they are not a part of the church of Jesus Christ.
So, my answer to question #2 is; Yes, they are to see the kingdom of God. They are in it and it is in them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 11:10:55 GMT -8
That is a problem. it is a quite common problem. That does not change the facts in evidence. Nor does it prove the op incorrect. If you are a Dispensationalist who has studied Dispensational Premillennialism then you should know what John Darby, Cyrus Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice, Michael Vlach and other leading Dispensationalists teach. These are the men who taught Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, David Jeremiah, Ron Rhodes, Mark Hitchcock. and others who wrote the more popularized versions found in the Christian bookstores. Not knowing what these men taught/teach is like a Catholic not knowing their Catechism or a Calvinist who has never read Calvin or the Westminster Confession. One of the secondary purposes of these ops is to help folks, even the dispensationalists among us, better understand Dispensationalism and what it teaches. And I again remind everyone this op is simply and sole about the newness and difference of Dispensational Premillennialism. Off-topic posts will be ignored. Ok, I probably couldn't add anything of value anyway. Can you tell me when Christians first began theologically teaching there are seven dispensations? Can you tell me when Chriastians first started teaching dispensations are a way of seeing time the way God sees it? That would be adding something of value to the discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 11:12:02 GMT -8
This is written to Josheb. I can't find the post in which it was written to answer it, but copied it from the summary. "No one in the 4000 years before Jesus came to die for us and wash away our sins and give us his Spirit could be a son of God. He could not be a tripartite person, soul, body, and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Why, if for no other logical reason? because Jesus is THE FIRSTBORN SON OF GOD FROM THE DEAD. He is not preeminent according to your theology. The OT believers were justified by faith in what God said to them, but they were not born again. The second birth is a NT doctrine and is accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection." I'm not sure which part of what I quoted here is your belief and what is what you say theirs is. Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again? Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)? Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God? Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God? I realize this is off-topic, and if you wish to ignore it, ok. But I am genuinely curious, as I wholeheartedly agree with most of what I have read you to say, while this feels more than a little, well, off.
1) Do you believe the Old Testament saints were not born again?
2) Are they not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)?
3) Was their faith not given them by the Spirit of God?
4) Does not the Romans 8 principle apply to them as to current man, that the heart after the flesh cannot please God?
I will briefly answer question #2 in this comment as I continue to expound on the wisdom and logic of dispensational thinking.
2) Are they (Old Testament saints) not to see the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3)?
You seem to be drawing a conclusion that OT saints will never have the Spirit of God and enter into the kingdom. That is not what the scriptures teach. It simply means that no one can have the Spirit of God while they have sin in them. Logic: if it could have been so then certainly Jesus would not have had to die for our sins. Why did he have to die for our sins to redeem us? Because his blood was the only cleansing agent for sin. No one can be saved unless Jesus Christ would have been willing to become a man and live a perfect God pleasing life and then shed his precious blood to wash away our sins. But washing away our sins is the negative part; He is now able to renew us to the trinitarian nature by giving us his holy Spirit, thus making us in the image of God through himself as we take on his image, soul, body, and the Holy Ghost as our very person-hood.
Ga 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (He did not shed the Holy Ghost on us through Noah or Abraham, or Moses). Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
So then, when will the OT saints receive forgiveness of sins and have the trinitarian nature renewed. It is before the beginning of the church of Jesus Christ but after the resurrection. It is at their resurrection, called by God the children of the resurrection. They are the firstfruits of the three part resurrection as typified in the spring feasts of Israel, the Passover, the feast of unleavened bread, the feast of first-fruits, and the festival thereof.
Ex 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Lu 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Justified OT saints go to paradise, one of the three sections of Hell in the center of the earth, awaiting the Spirit.
Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into (1) Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And (2) in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is (3) a great gulf fixed (the bottomless pit): so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
MT 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
The FORBEARANCE of God on behalf of OT saints who he had justified by faith.
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
And here;
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
The OT saints are resurrected but they are not a part of the church of Jesus Christ.
So, my answer to question #2 is; Yes, they are to see the kingdom of God. They are in it and it is in them.
What is the topic of this op? |
|
JDS
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by JDS on Oct 23, 2022 19:28:22 GMT -8
What is the topic of this op? It does not matter to me if no one believes dispensational theology. What is important is if it is true. So what if a bunch of Catholics and Presbyterians and other Protestants never have taught the truth? Who would expect them to? The general rule for that crowd is to teach a super sovereign God who teaches determinism and that no one has a choice in anything. I am going here in this post for a demonstration of differing principles of divine dealing of God between the 1656 years after the expulsion of Adam from the garden of Eden until the days shortly after the world wide flood in Noah's days. DIspensationalists defines this time period as the dispensation of "conscience." That teaches us that man is created a moral creature with intelligence, reason, and will and that morality is written in his consciousness of the difference between right and wrong. There is no outward law given from God to direct him in what he ought to do. He did not say to anyone that they must not enter into the Garden and eat of the tree of life. What he did say was simply the following.
Ge 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Ge 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
No law was given. Instead, God took precautions to keep sinful man of entering the garden and eating of the tree of life and living forever. There was no law from God for a man to bring a sacrifice, we are merely told that Cain and his brother Abel brought one each to God and that God accepted the one and rejected the other. There was no law against murder and so God did not enact what we will later come to know as an eye for eye and tooth for tooth.This will be after he gives the law and holds men accountable for his actions. Watch this verse;
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Now watch this verse in the same historical context.
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ge 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Following is God's not surprising response if men during this time were governed by their conscience and their understanding of right and wrong. You will find no commandments in God's response to Cain.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
Unless someone thinks Cain and Abel did not know the difference between right and wrong, read this next amazing statement:
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
These verses proves that these men knew good and evil and these 1656 years passed without a single command from God until 120 years were left during which time they had run out for that dispensation and God made a way for the one righteous man who was left to escape with his family. The man was Noay.
Now look what he said in the context of that man. We are introduced to the Satanic sons of God marrying women and having children by them and thus corrupting the human race in an attempt to thwart the plan of God of bringing in the "seed of the woman" who would bruise the head of Satan and redeem mankind.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
3 ¶ And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 ¶ There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 ¶ But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 ¶ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 ¶ And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
It is interesting to me that God took issue with the THINKING of these people and said not a word about their deeds. Not one word. When he casts sinners into the lake of fire, which is the second death, he says nothing about their thinking but condemns them for their deeds and even has a book of them. See Re 20:11-15.
So, now we see that man failed under the second principle of divine dealing, which is to be led of their conscience. This principle will not end in the next dispensation but another principle will be added to keep the conscience in tune and that principle is human government where there is human law based on the moral code of the conscience for order in society. Notice when he destroys the whole population of the earth, less eight people what the first thing he does;
Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Now there is a command from God for a death penalty. How long is human government going to last? Answer: Ge 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
Logic 101; If this covenant is to people on the earth perpetually, and God is making it everlasting, what does that say about how long the earth will be here with people on it?
Now we know there is an additional principle involved on God's management over his earthly affairs.
Ro 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Reasonable and Spirit filled Christians will easily see that God brings about change when time runs out on a principle and it no longer is applicable by itself.
However, God in the OT justified men for obeying by faith what God revealed to them through their conscience. I did not say it, he did. see here;
Ro 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
1 « To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. » The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
The bar is much lower in the OT than in the NT and God held a man accountable according to what he revealed to them. To many it was the voice of his creation.
This should demonstrate without a doubt that God progresses in his dispensational management of men as time passes and adds revelation of himself and his ways. Just because a subset of those who identify with Christianity cannot make application to truth does not mean they are not true.
|
|
