genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 16, 2022 4:47:59 GMT -8
Dispensationalism must have opposition if its an essential doctrine leading to maturity in Christ.. .And that following requires a belief in the Dispensationalist eschatology. Os Guinness John Piper Timothy Keller Greg Bahnsen Sinclair Ferguson Those are just a few of the names of Christians who would not be allowed to join or be members of a Dispensationalist congregation. If you are really interested in searching for the truth.... this should be a good and helpful read.
He was the president and founder of the Dallas Theological Seminary.
Dispensationalism was not developed as a theology when a good number of the folks you cite were alive. Luther was fighting to overcome the oppressive corruption of Rome. And, another aspect to consider. Israel was not seen as a nation when many you cited were developing their theology. For 2000 years it looked like Israel was to no longer be a people with a nation. Time to reconsider.
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 15, 2022 13:14:08 GMT -8
Well, genez, I have read most of what Watts, Darby, Scofield, Chaffer, Pentecost, Ryrie, Graham, Walvoord, Smith, Lindsay, LaHaye, Ice, Jeremiah, Cahn, Vlach, Blaising, Bock, Lester and other leading Dispensationalists have written. I also listen to Dispensationalist teachers on the radio throughout the day. It is because I am a former Dispensationalist Premillennialist who HAS read a lot about Dispensationalism from the Dispensationalists themselves, that I can and do post these ops. Do you believe that those in the Church should live the same as the Jews did under the Law of Moses?
That what God has established as to what is to govern our lives as being one and the same? And, that before the Church age, the issue of the spiritual man in his function has remained the same?
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 15, 2022 13:02:34 GMT -8
You need to get out more and finally find one of the few good teachers. Otherwise? This getting to be dumb. This post was reported for petty bickering and off-topic personal attacks ( rules 1b, 1c, and 1d of the forum's rules of conduct). Thank you for your time. I appreciate the evidence proving the op correct. I'm disappointed proper decorum and topical discourse couldn't (or wouldn't) be maintained. In the future, anytime an impulse to leave a thread is felt then just do so. Silence is all that is needed. Snotty comments prove this op correct. If you change your mind and decide a conversation about the inconsistencies living out Christianity from within Dispensationalism is a conversation in which you can participate, then please return. That goes for any and all considering discussing this topic, whether Dispensationalist or not. Happy to have you contribute. I ask simply that manners and respect be applied. Just because a thought occurs does not mean it should come out of our mouth.  Well, genez, I have read most of what Watts, Darby, Scofield, Chaffer, Pentecost, Ryrie, Graham, Walvoord, Smith, Lindsay, LaHaye, Ice, Jeremiah, Cahn, Vlach, Blaising, Bock, Lester and other leading Dispensationalists have written. I also listen to Dispensationalist teachers on the radio throughout the day. It is because I am a former Dispensationalist Premillennialist who HAS read a lot about Dispensationalism from the Dispensationalists themselves, that I can and do post these ops. Wouldn't it be beneficial to recommend someone considered to be a " good teacher," rather to than to assume and insinuate a person hasn't already read, and post snotty comments proving an inconsistent faith walk? Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.
Look... you come here after reading many books that others may have not.
We have no way to refute you on the basis of what was said in those books. We don't even know if you understood them or not. Nor, can we know what they said. You give us nothing to think with in that case.
That is why I called it dumb. Not you! The argument. One based upon hearsay.
Why argue in that case? Actually, I would be the one who would be dumb to try.
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 15, 2022 10:47:45 GMT -8
It has yet to be proven Dispensationalism does dispensations correctly. That is the point! |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 14, 2022 18:36:08 GMT -8
Dispensationalism must have opposition if its an essential doctrine leading to maturity in Christ.. .This sentence is worth noting because the essential truth of Dispensationalism is not maturity in Christ. I can provide quotes from Dispensationalist leaders affirming Dispensationalism's move away from soteriology as a core doctrine of the faith in place of their emphasis on ecclesiology and eschatology. Not only does Dispensationalism willfully and openly emphasize ecclesiology and eschatology over soteriology (claiming to hold to the same soteriology as everyone else when that is not true), it's ecclesiology and eschatology is radically different than everyone else's and, in some places, so radically different that if what Dispensationalism asserts is correct then Christianity has been false from its inception!!!!! Doing a right concept wrongly, does not make the concept wrong. Someone proposing bad soteriology does not negate soteriology. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 12, 2022 9:45:36 GMT -8
There is something not right with the software here. I know how to quote. At times it refuses to allow to keep the quote and response apart. Its frustrating. And, it is not consistent. Sometimes it works fine.
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 11, 2022 18:49:19 GMT -8
Here are a couple of fairly plain, simple, and indisputable facts for consideration. First, for all intents and purposes, Israel was literally destroyed in 70 AD. That's a simple fact of history. It has nothing to do with sectarian and/or eschatological points of view. As a consequence, Christian doctrines developed within the reality there was no nation of Israel. ........................... |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 10, 2022 16:33:16 GMT -8
Are all males who accept Christ now to be circumcised? NO! Israel and the Church are two different dispensations. That is a false cause argument, it is a misreading of scripture, and the New Testament tells us there is a continuity, not discontinuity, there not possible with Dispensationalism's views of dispensations. - False cause: circumcision is not what makes a person an Israelite.
You are confusing the Israel vs true Israel argument..... All Jews, believer, or unbeliever, males. Were to be circumcised. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 5, 2022 8:08:40 GMT -8
yes, People try to attack what they do not understand
When one believes that no one can understand? He will feel he is on equal footing and free to make up his own version....
When that is the case? It becomes a matter of proving their will over to those whom they chose to oppose.
To them it becomes competitive, all ego and pride..
On the other hand. When knowing the truth? It makes one 'free' of that game being played.
But then again, there are times when no one yet knows the truth. Then we act as a constrainer for one another showing contradictions in logic being held to.
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Nov 3, 2022 14:52:38 GMT -8
I'm talking about the Connection Between Dispensationalism and No-lordship Doctrine. Did you know virtually all the champions of no-lordship doctrine are dispensationalists. No covenant theologian defends the no-lordship gospel. Why? Inquiring minds want to know.  Most of us only see dispensationalism as a distinction in Scripture between Israel and the church Not sure what you mean by No-Lordship salvation. as for your point about it being a distinction between israel and the church. this is far of base. and if this is what one thinks, I would ask them to restudy what dispensations teach. because they do not understand Are all males who accept Christ now to be circumcised? NO! Israel and the Church are two different dispensations. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Oct 28, 2022 17:23:58 GMT -8
Controversy must be expected in Christianity when it comes to seeking to overcome resistance to the Truth that must be learned. Dispensationalism must have opposition if its an essential doctrine leading to maturity in Christ. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Eph 6:12 Having conflicting positions with resistance is a part of a process God has decreed for the body of Christ. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show
which of you have God’s approval." 1 Cor 11:18-19
The resistance against the side that has truth will always be self righteous...
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Oct 26, 2022 9:58:22 GMT -8
Perhaps you should be reflecting on your own words and attitude instead of worrying about mine. We could have had an interesting exchange of views but you`d rather declare yourself to have special knowledge while declaring my knowledge to be inadequate and a variety of other unsavory things. Now you appear to be engaging me with Ad Hominem which makes your lecturing pretty hypocritical.You revealed that your sacred recording is a precurser of the Hal Lindsey school of thought. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Oct 26, 2022 0:10:03 GMT -8
Those must happen before Christ returns with His resurrected church.
You are confusing the Rapture/resurrection with the Return of Christ.
In the Rapture Christ meets believers in the air. He does not return to earth. Not until after he prepares resurrected believers for reigning with Him.
Sorry Hal but your opinion isn`t Biblical. Why you want to be that way is between you and the Lord.
I have a feeling that this forum is going to be taken over by some sects and ruin it before it can sprout wings. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Oct 25, 2022 20:08:08 GMT -8
The Bible lists 4 events that must take place before the first ressurection will occur. 1 Elijah comes 2 a large number of people quit Christianity 3 the antichrist sits in the Jerusalem Temple and says he is god 4 The sun and moon are darkened If God is determined to fulfill all the words of the prophets as Jesus claimed He does, then these 4 events are inevitable.
Those must happen before Christ returns with His resurrected church.
You are confusing the Rapture/resurrection with the Return of Christ.
In the Rapture Christ meets believers in the air. He does not return to earth. Not until after he prepares resurrected believers for reigning with Him.
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Oct 25, 2022 12:44:06 GMT -8
If Paul were speaking of 'apostasy' coming first? That would be illogical.
For Paul was telling them not to worry.
Because the 'departure' must come first.
If he were speaking in reference to apostasy? He would have nothing to stand on as to get them to stop worrying!
For apostasy was everywhere around them to be found.
Not to mention, Paul's epistles many times were dealing with apostasy! It was already there!
Paul was not telling them...
"Don't worry. Because what must happen first, is happening all around us at present. "
We need to make sense. For, God makes sense. God is not illogical.
The departure must come first before the Antichrist is revealed.
|
|
