DF: More Fairytales of the SRB

[Hitch]

On page 1101 of your '09 SRB you will find;

The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not then kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivitol point in the ministry of Jesus.


A basic flaw in the DF system is the notion that Christ was sent to establish a geo-political kingdom headquatered in Jerusalem and only upon the failure of that plan was the plan of the cross substituted . This is used to from the main plank on which is constructed yet another geo-political Jerusalem centered kingdom, yet future. With out this plank the structure of the futuristic Davidic Throne Kingdom (earthly) is revealed as a house of cards.

Adherents are invited to present Scriptural support for;

1; Christ's purpose was originally to set up the earthly kingdom (as described above) .

2. Christ's 'offer' being rejected is replaced with an offer of rest and service.

3. Christ's work of the cross as a 'secondary plan' something other than his original and true purpose. Resulting in the 'Parenthetical Church Age'.


Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

Luke 1:66-2:11
66 And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be! And the hand of the Lord was with him.
67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

CHAPTER 2

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.
7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(KJV)

This is the Promise , and the fulfillment. Realestate is not involved...


Through the tender mercy of our God How can there be 'tender mercy' in the dispensation of Law?


Take care

Hitch



__________________

[Darth Xena]

Cool thing Hitch. I was hoping you would start this.

[joelkaki]

That phrase gets me, "the rejected king." That would be why he never tried to get them to accept him as a physical king. Not to mention they tried to force him to become king at one point, but he refused. I guess we'll just have to stick with Biblical truth--"My kingdom is not of this world."


Joel

[GrayPilgrim]

The rejected king thing kind of falls flat on its face when you figure the theme of Mark is Messianic Secret, doesn't it? That is, Jesus tried to keep his identity secret from the people, because he did not want them to set him up as a quasi-military leader, and his disciples couldn't figure which end was up.



:yipee:

[Hitch]

GrayPilgrim:
The rejected king thing kind of falls flat on its face when you figure the theme of Mark is Messianic Secret, doesn't it? That is, Jesus tried to keep his identity secret from the people, because he did not want them to set him up as a quasi-military leader, and his disciples couldn't figure which end was up.



:yipee: Yup.

Even further I reckon all those 'kingdom passages' the liiteralists like to bring up fall under the Master's interpretation whne as Joel already told us Jesus says 'My kingdom if not of this world'

Take care


Hitch

[Hitch]

Dee Dee Warren:
Cool thing Hitch. I was hoping you would start this. Oh my,,,, sniff sniff,,,thats,,, thats,,, the nicest thing a forum over ever said to me...

And some of these poeple will think Im kiddin...

H

[Darth Xena]

LOLOLOL!!!

[Lizard]

Great thread Hitch, but it looks like so far you are preaching to the choir.

[Hitch]

Faramir:
Great thread Hitch, but it looks like so far you are preaching to the choir. Heh heh, thats a common problem with Reformed based forums. The DFs like it when their territory is invaded. Then they can eventually declare victory by banishment.(I ve ben bumped several times always on DF owned forums)

But what Im trying to do is expose, bit by bit, the rotting foundation of the SRB based system and have a place for the less familiar to find answers to the questions that come up. Some of the DFs will stay on board, but I reckon when its discovered that their usual Shibboleths are not officially supported they will pack up and go. I would like to have genuine DF responses to deal with but only time will tell. (I cant answer anymore at that other place...lol)

In the mean im sure there are plenty of folks holding various forms of DF based eschatological outlooks who dont know anything about the patriculars of the fabled 'Parenthetical Church Age'. They are out working to advance the Kingdom before the 'rapture' cuts the work short...They dont realize that if the 'rapture' is coming any second the Kingdom era hasnt even begun yet,,, Sometimes these are reachable.

More and moe I see a couple of DF groups. Those who have been led to believe anything else is liberal nonsense some show great surpirse when confronted with anti rapturist notions from someone they see to be sound otherwise. The other group will staunchly defend the worst aspects of DF thought which as you know require some fairly nonsensical positions. These I reckon would , if not for DF, be allied with some other possibly more destructive, abberants.

So we'll see, Im trying NOT to run any one off, while maintaining a directly confrontational approach.


take care


Hitch

[Lizard]

Hitch:
More and moe I see a couple of DF groups. Those who have been led to believe anything else is liberal nonsense some show great surpirse when confronted with anti rapturist notions from someone they see to be sound otherwise. Hitch

:rofl:

Have we met before? That was me about a year and a half ago.

I was raised dispy., I even taught it in Sunday School, but I never fully understood it's basis in scripture. The more I studied the more confused I became. Finally I came to the conclusion that the Dispies were just guessing, but I thought that it was the best guess there was. A was an Escotolgical agnostic for years . Not really giving it much thought.

Then my Sunday School class (I was not teaching at this time) decided to do a study of Tim Lahay's "Unveiling Revelation". Being a dutiful SS student, I studied for each lesson. The more I studied the more I realized that dispensaionalism was not the best guess not a godd guess, but that it was just plain wrong.

I bgan to look for other, futurist type eschatology. During my search, I ran across an article on preterism. My first thought was, "wow what liberal nonsense". Then I read more carefully, and realized that the author had great respect for the inspiration of scripture. I still though that this must be wrong, even though it made a certain amount of sense.

I began to research preterism more, especially anti-preterism arguments. I was trying to convince myself that preterism was a "liberal" trick. For three months I tried to talk myself out of preterism. To no avail :thumb: . I came kicking and screaming into the preterist camp, but now you can't get rid of me.

So to make a long story short (oops too late): Been there done that.

So there may be hope for others ;), at least in the first group.

Keep up the good work.

[Hitch]

Have we met before? That was me about a year and a half ago.

I was fortunate enough to have coat-tails. My dad forged the way while at the time being a practicing ordained Assembly of God pastor. Now that was an interesting trip...

take care

H

[Reba]

Choir member here :) cant sing a note. . .


I grew up KNOWING dispensationalsim was bible truth. Haha what a shock.

[bar Jonah]

Hitch:
On page 1101 of your '09 SRB you will find;

The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not then kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivitol point in the ministry of Jesus.
Forgive me for not being used to some of the rampant abbreviations many of you use here. Am I to correctly guess that SRB refers to the Scofield Bible?

If so, then my first response is -- straw man... straw man... straw man. Neither I nor any of the dispies I know of here hold to Scofield's views. As I stated in another thread, even though I am distantly related to the man and have the same last name, I have yet to read a single word Scofield ever wrote. I have no plans to do so in the forseeable future, but I probably will, eventually.

If you want to address Dispyism, then address the dispy views of those present, not just the particular dispy version that you find is easiest to shoot down.

[Hitch]

RightIdea:
Forgive me for not being used to some of the rampant abbreviations many of you use here. Am I to correctly guess that SRB refers to the Scofield Bible?

If so, then my first response is -- straw man... straw man... straw man. Neither I nor any of the dispies I know of here hold to Scofield's views. As I stated in another thread, even though I am distantly related to the man and have the same last name, I have yet to read a single word Scofield ever wrote. I have no plans to do so in the forseeable future, but I probably will, eventually.

If you want to address Dispyism, then address the dispy views of those present, not just the particular dispy version that you find is easiest to shoot down. Yawn... the SRB has formed the backbone of DF teaching since its first printing in 1909. That edidtion in particular was used at Dallas Theological until 1967 when the revisied version of the same was adopted. Since its unlikely you are aware, DTS is the largest DF seminary in the world.

Now since the SRB dosnt apply to you what are you doing here?

Wanst the header plain enough for you to understand?

Good night and please refrain from addressing me in the future.


H

[bar Jonah]

I'll address you if I please, Hitch. :)

What I said was simply that you are attacking a theological position that isn't represented here by anyone present (that I know of, at least). You are thus setting it up as a dispensational straw man, so you can burn it down and make it look like dispyism in general is flawed.

Well I don't care if you burn down Scofield a hundred times, it has nothing to do with the rest of dispensationalism. Scofield is only one of many forms of dispyism, as has been evidenced on this board:

John 20 dispy
Acts 2 dispy
Acts 9 dispy
Acts 28 dispy

Not to mention open and non-open dispies among various of the above. Not to mention progressive dispensationalism. Not to mention variations within the above categories.

So, all I'm asking is that you actually attack something that can defend itself here. You want to pick on someone... pick on someone who is here to respond. It's too easy to demolish the views of people who are absent. But my guess is that the only form of dispyism you're used to burning down is the Scofield brand, so that's what you prefer to stick to.

[Lizard]

RightIdea:
Forgive me for not being used to some of the rampant abbreviations many of you use here. Am I to correctly guess that SRB refers to the Scofield Bible?

If so, then my first response is -- straw man... straw man... straw man. Neither I nor any of the dispies I know of here hold to Scofield's views. As I stated in another thread, even though I am distantly related to the man and have the same last name, I have yet to read a single word Scofield ever wrote. I have no plans to do so in the forseeable future, but I probably will, eventually.

If you want to address Dispyism, then address the dispy views of those present, not just the particular dispy version that you find is easiest to shoot down.

Good to see you here RI :hi:. I was wondering how long it would take you to show up in this thread.

For clarification. What is your position on Hitch's statement here:

A basic flaw in the DF system is the notion that Christ was sent to establish a geo-political kingdom headquatered in Jerusalem and only upon the failure of that plan was the plan of the cross substituted . This is used to from the main plank on which is constructed yet another geo-political Jerusalem centered kingdom, yet future. With out this plank the structure of the futuristic Davidic Throne Kingdom (earthly) is revealed as a house of cards.

[bar Jonah]

My position is that such a view IS absolutely absurd, preposterous, literally heretical. To think that Christ's crucifixion on the cross was "Plan B" is unacceptable and antichrist. The crucifixion and resurrection was planned since the fall of mankind in the Garden, if not before. Dispies believe in a Plan B (and usually also a Plan C, D, E, etc.) But the crucifixion and resurrection were always Plan A after the fall of mankind.

[smilax]

Solly posted this once upon a time, in a land far, far away:I might equally point out, that a full working knowledge of dispensationalism, in whatever brand, is not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is an understanding of scripture. The truth will out, as they say. How many of us have a deep understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Communism, marxism, Existentialism, PostModernism, Nihilism, Wicca, 1001 subChristian cults, Arianism, Nesotianism, Modalism, Arminianism, Calvinsim, OVTism, Dispensationalism Unitarianism, Liberalism, etc etc etc.

So that as far as using the "you don't understand ****-ism properly" argument is concerned, I think I could just as easily use it against those who continue to caricature Calvinism as determinism. Such statements do not forward the discussion at all, but rather prejudice it. I have refrained from caricaturing Arminianism, for instance. Neither is anything gained by the resort to "Oh, but HE doesn't understand MY dispensationalism, so that isn't a valid comment".

There seems to be a lot of thrashing one particular view, while giving very little in return in a lot of the debates on TOL. I have given up on a lot, because having answered a question, I am immediatly presented with another six excerpts from scripture to comment on, and yet none of my questions have been addressed, as if I am on trial for heresy.

If you think your view is being misrepresented, then represent it, in the debate.So... as the man says, if you don't dig Scofield, then let us know what you believe so interaction can actually take place.

[Sparko]

:grin:

[Armor of God]

John 20 dispy
Acts 2 dispy
Acts 9 dispy
Acts 28 dispy

Gah, is this what happens when two dispies of different views mate and procreate?

LoL, I guess if one gets shot down, there's always more on the buffet to choose from.

[Berean Todd]

Gah, is this what happens when two dispies of different views mate and procreate?

LoL, I guess if one gets shot down, there's always more on the buffet to choose from.

What a pointless old thread revival ... but for the record, in reference to what you quoted, 90% or more (probably 98% or more) of dispensationalists are "Acts 2" dispies. Anything else is an extremely small minority, fringe element.

[Berean Todd]

Solly posted this once upon a time, in a land far, far away:So... as the man says, if you don't dig Scofield, then let us know what you believe so interaction can actually take place.

It's not just "not digging" Scofield ... it is the fact that really NO modern dispensationalists believes the way he did. If you want to critique dispensationalism then you have to cirtique what we actually believe. The sad fact is that a great deal of the criticism of dispensationalism - both here and on other boards I frequent - is aimed at views that either no or very few dispensationalists hold right now.

[Armor of God]

Who is the "we?" Scholars? The masses? The founders of DF?

What I see on boards is the same goofy stuff that you apparently don't like, so apparently it's not just a "few" that hold to it.

[Berean Todd]

Who is the "we?" Scholars? The masses? The founders of DF?

What I see on boards is the same goofy stuff that you apparently don't like, so apparently it's not just a "few" that hold to it.

The "we" is the majority of dispensationalism. If you want specific examples look at any contemporary scholarship coming from DTS (my seminary), Moody, Trinity Evangelical, etc, etc ...

There are obviously some basic framework similarities between Schofield and modern dispensationalism, but overall he is far off from modern dispensationalism, and many of his ideas which critics are so quick to jump on all dispies for are ideas and beliefs that NO modern dispie holds.

[Armor of God]

Can we have some specific examples of things that others attack dispies for that none of them hold?

[Berean Todd]

1. OT Israel is saved by works - is a huge one that people knock on Schofield and some of the very early dispies for ... and you will not find a dispensational scholar today who teaches anything but salvation by grace through faith in any and every dispensataion.

2. Not specific to Scofield but the whole "1948 problem" is a problem for kook crooks like Lindsay and some even more adament than him. However while many may wonder or question if this is the time, few if any serious scholars say that this IS the last days because of 1948. Israel could be whipped off of the map tommorow and it would not cause the vast majority of dispies to question our beliefs one bit.
Just a couple of examples.

[John Reece]

The "we" is the majority of dispensationalism. If you want specific examples look at any contemporary scholarship coming from DTS (my seminary), Moody, Trinity Evangelical, etc, etc ...

What contemporary scholarship coming from Trinity Evangelical can you cite in support of dispensationalism?

[Armor of God]

1. OT Israel is saved by works - is a huge one that people knock on Schofield and some of the very early dispies for ... and you will not find a dispensational scholar today who teaches anything but salvation by grace through faith in any and every dispensataion.

2. Not specific to Scofield but the whole "1948 problem" is a problem for kook crooks like Lindsay and some even more adament than him. However while many may wonder or question if this is the time, few if any serious scholars say that this IS the last days because of 1948. Israel could be whipped off of the map tommorow and it would not cause the vast majority of dispies to question our beliefs one bit.
Just a couple of examples.

OK, so first "NO modern dispie holds" these kooky views, but now it's "few if any serious scholars?" :smile:

[Hitch]

I started these threads to show the rotting foundations of DF thinking. Tod's supposed abandonment of some of these things by 'modern' DFs proves the point.

Odd though how many turn their backs on some of the worst aspects of oldline DF and yet cling to the conclusions drawn through those doctrines. heh heh

[Hitch]

OK, so first "NO modern dispie holds" these kooky views, but now it's "few if any serious scholars?" :smile: LOL I've got some quotes and Ill wager no one could tell whether its Walvoord or Lindsey...

[ForHimAlone]

Hitch says:
A basic flaw in the DF system is the notion that Christ was sent to establish a geo-political kingdom headquatered in Jerusalem and only upon the failure of that plan was the plan of the cross substituted . This is used to from the main plank on which is constructed yet another geo-political Jerusalem centered kingdom, yet future. With out this plank the structure of the futuristic Davidic Throne Kingdom (earthly) is revealed as a house of cards.

Bar Jonah Replies: My position is that such a view IS absolutely absurd, preposterous, literally heretical. To think that Christ's crucifixion on the cross was "Plan B" is unacceptable and antichrist. The crucifixion and resurrection was planned since the fall of mankind in the Garden, if not before. Dispies believe in a Plan B (and usually also a Plan C, D, E, etc.) But the crucifixion and resurrection were always Plan A after the fall of mankind.

FHA replies to both:

IIRC, dispensationalism posits that, because Christ was rejected by the Jews as King upon his first advent, he "postponed" the kingdom the Jews were expecting, and took up dealing with the Gentiles, but would eventually return to his plan for national Israel by giving them the "millennial" kingdom.

Of course Hitch is right when he says that the mistake made by DF interpreters is that Christ offered Israel a geo-political kingdom in the first place. The second mistake dispensationalists of all flavors make is their idea that God had two, separate and distinct redemptive histories in mind for two, separate "peoples" of God, an idea Paul completely demolishes in Ephesians and Galatians.

God never had two redemptive tracts - one for Israel and another for the church - in mind. The entire course of redemptive history had one Redeemer for all people in view. God did not put Israel's future on hold while he dealt with the Gentiles in the Gospel era, but one, contiguous redemptive history proceeded to unfold with Christ bringing his spiritual and everlasting kingdom, first to the Jews, and then through the apostles, to the Gentiles. They were both to have one Shepherd, and one God.

Really, then, the notion that God is going to "pick up where he left off" with the Jews is a misnomer. God has continuously dealt with them from the days of his Son's sojourn in the flesh until now.

Another false impression is that Jesus will return and set up house in the "Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children." No such thing is going to happen. When the terrible and great Day of Christ shall come, the present, evil world will in the fervent heat of God's judgment pass away; the final judgment and resurrection will take place, and the outcome of these events will make way for the final state. Christ will bring New Jerusalem and establish his Father's everlasting kingdom in a restored world (Rev. 21.1ff).

Yes, Bar Jonah, God did not have a redemptive "plan B" even though some among the Jews believed Jesus was to be merely a political ruler who would remove the Roman yolk from their necks and give them all the toys, and make everyone else bow at their feet - a mistaken figment the Jews yet cleave to - but they shall have to deal with how they dealt with Christ, if they heard of him, and how they treated those who were his people, as will the rest of humanity.

In short: neither national Israel - nor the Gentile world -will not have any, further chance at redemption after Christ returns.

Blessings,
FHA

[Tim C.]

On page 1101 of your '09 SRB you will find;

The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not then kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivitol point in the ministry of Jesus.

You refer to his note on Matthew 11:28-30. Maybe it plays into the "kingdom offer" theme, maybe it doesn't. Personally, I don't think it plays much into the "kingdom offer" theme.

A basic flaw in the DF system is the notion that Christ was sent to establish a geo-political kingdom headquatered in Jerusalem and only upon the failure of that plan was the plan of the cross substituted.

Ah, the 'ol "thwarted Plan A" nonsense again, eh? When will you people accurately critique the "kingdom offer" theme of Scripture? Have you read my book review of Kim Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism at amazon.com, Hitch? I refute your lie there, so no reason to repeat myself here.

This is used to from the main plank on which is constructed yet another geo-political Jerusalem centered kingdom, yet future. With out this plank the structure of the futuristic Davidic Throne Kingdom (earthly) is revealed as a house of cards.

Actually, it is a result of the plain meaning of the Scripture. We don't need this issue in Christ's first advent ministry to establish premillennialism, Hitch. Heck, all we need is the Davidic Covenant to do that.

My class (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=21346) starts tonight, Hitch. Maybe you should come. You'd learn some Bible. You'd actually learn what the Messianic Kingdom is.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

1. Christ's purpose was originally to set up the earthly kingdom (as described above).

You mean like Luke 1:31-33; Mark 1:14; Matthew 11:14; etc.?

2. Christ's 'offer' being rejected

You mean like Matthew 21; Luke 17:20-25; John 1:11; etc.?

...is replaced with an offer of rest and service.

You mean like the revelation of the Mystery through Paul, as in Ephesians 3; Colossians 2; etc.?

3. Christ's work of the cross as a 'secondary plan' something other than his original and true purpose. Resulting in the 'Parenthetical Church Age'.

Since that isn't what we teach (Acts 3:18), I see no reason to argue it.

-Tim

[Hitch]

LOL Well Timmy you are consistent, pathetic to the end.

[Hitch]

You refer to his note on Matthew 11:28-30. Maybe it plays into the "kingdom offer" theme, maybe it doesn't. Personally, I don't think it plays much into the "kingdom offer" theme.


On page 1101 of your '09 SRB you will find;

The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not then kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivitol point in the ministry of Jesus.

emphasis added to demosntrate Tim's selective blindness.


LOL Did mention that you are a pathetic whiner Tim? Ya knw you might have something if you only had the anatomy to say you dont agree with the SRB,,, who cares? But pathetic is the only kind why to describe this nonsense.


Ah, the 'ol "thwarted Plan A" nonsense again, eh? When will you people accurately critique the "kingdom offer" theme of Scripture? Have you read my book review of Kim Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism at amazon.com, Hitch? I refute your lie there, so no reason to repeat myself here.

... When Christ appeared to the jewish people the next thing in the order of revelation as it then stood ,should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom...[/

SRB p998 #3 emphasis added.


I'll say this much Tim ,you always read your script perfectly.

Now I have produced the quote with the reference.. You havent the balls to publicly apologize,, do you Timmy?

And no Timmy reading your drivel here is more than I can stand.



Actually, it is a result of the plain meaning of the Scripture. We don't need this issue in Christ's first advent ministry to establish premillennialism, Hitch. Heck, all we need is the Davidic Covenant to do that.

My class (http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=21346) starts tonight, Hitch. Maybe you should come. You'd learn some Bible. You'd actually learn what the Messianic Kingdom is.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

On page 1101 of your '09 SRB you will find;

The new message of Jesus. The rejected King now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not then kingdom, but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need. It is a pivitol point in the ministry of Jesus.

emphasis added to demosntrate Tim's selective blindness.

Hmmm... nope, nothing there about a "thwarted plan A."

LOL Did mention that you are a pathetic whiner Tim?

I'm a "whiner" for pointing out the fact our opponents don't rightly comprehend the "kingdom offer" theme of the New Testament? Like this:

"God is delaying the kingdom for the lengthy period of time known as the church age or the 'great parenthesis' between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel. The present dispensation results from humanity's ability to frustrate God's redemptive-historical purposes. . . . despite Walvoord's efforts to insist that God is sovereign, the lack of human cooperation frustrated his plan, thereby forcing a delay in its inauguration for at least two thousand years. But the New Testament knows nothing of a kingdom offered and a kingdom withdrawn according to the whims of unbelieving Israel. . . . Therefore, the church age functions as a 'plan B' during this present dispensation. Israel has rejected the kingdom offer made by Jesus, creating the present parenthesis phase of redemption until God again deals with ethnic Israel at the beginning of the great tribulation after the rapture of the Gentile church. . . . The church is not a 'plan B' or a contingency developed by God in hasty response to Israel's rejection of Jesus and his messianic kingdom. . . . From this, it should be clear that Jesus did not consider the Gentile church as an afterthought on God's part." - Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, pp.103, 118, 123

These are lies, Hitch. Kind of like your lie that we teach the crucifixion was suddenly substituted once God's original plan failed. Why should we answer to lies?

Ya knw you might have something if you only had the anatomy to say you dont agree with the SRB,,, who cares? But pathetic is the only kind why to describe this nonsense.

I agree with Scofield for the most part. Too bad you're too dull to see this.

... When Christ appeared to the jewish people the next thing in the order of revelation as it then stood ,should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom...

SRB p998 #3 emphasis added.

And again, no "thwarted plan A" stuff. You guys really should study passages such as Acts 2:23; Acts 3:17-21; Ephesians 3:11; Matthew 16:21-23; Matthew 23:37-39; Luke 17:22-25; and on and on and on. You don't think we skip over these passages in our doctrine, do you? We're not as dumb as you look. Your "criticism" of our view is like a dummy who isolates a piece of Genesis 3 and concludes that "God's plan failed."

I'll say this much Tim ,you always read your script perfectly.

I'll say this much, Hitch, you always find time to toss in some sneering and personal attacks even though your original points have been answered for you.

Now I have produced the quote with the reference.. You havent the balls to publicly apologize,, do you Timmy?

You have yet to show me this alleged "thwarted plan A" idea in Scofield's notes. Betcha can't back it up with any other dispensational scholars, either.

-Tim

[Hitch]

So you're saying Jesus never changed His message?

[Tim C.]

So you're saying Jesus never changed His message?

Still no "thwarted plan A" ideas from Scofield or other Dispensational scholars? Gee... I wonder why you haven't quoted them yet, Hitch? Perhaps because no such quotes exist, and because you are deliberately misrepresenting the "kingdom offer" theme in the New Testament? Yep, thats why.

-Tim

[Hitch]

Still no "thwarted plan A" ideas from Scofield or other Dispensational scholars? Gee... I wonder why you haven't quoted them yet, Hitch? Perhaps because no such quotes exist, and because you are deliberately misrepresenting the "kingdom offer" theme in the New Testament? Yep, thats why.

-TimTimmy it is a given you will deny the obvious.


Despite your wimpers to the contrary the evidence has been produced (#36 this thread) and I find your delusions amuzing. But can you answer,,, Did Jesus change his message or not?

For a reminder;

Adherents are invited to present Scriptural support for;

1; Christ's purpose was originally to set up the earthly kingdom (as described above) .

2. Christ's 'offer' being rejected is replaced with an offer of rest and service.

3. Christ's work of the cross as a 'secondary plan' something other than his original and true purpose. Resulting in the 'Parenthetical Church Age'.

[Berean Todd]

Hitch, not only are you an idiot, but you are also misrepresenting the teachings of dispensationalism, but I will show a few things.


Adherents are invited to present Scriptural support for;

1; Christ's purpose was originally to set up the earthly kingdom (as described above) .

Notice, particularly in Matthew, the message that was preached early on. "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand." The greek there is very specific, 'at hand' means near, in close proximity.

Notice Matthew 10, when Jesus sends the disciples out to preach what He tells them:

Matthew 10:5 "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying "The Kindgom of Heaven is at hand."

Now, why is it that He told them not to go to any gentiles or samaritans? His death on the cross was for all. Later in His ministry He himself would go to the Samaritans and save a great many of them. In Matthew 28, and in Acts 1 He sends them into the whole world. Yet here they are to share the message with noone else but Israel. Why?

It's simple, because the early message that was preached was one of the Kingdom ... the Kingdom was being offered to them.

2. Christ's 'offer' being rejected is replaced with an offer of rest and service.

This question is weighted. I wouldn't say anything along the lines of the second half of that. Jesus came knowing the offer of the Kingdom would be rejected, and that the cross was His destination before His birth. It was prophesied in the Word that God Himself wrote, and Jesus was fully God. However, if you want the rejection and removal look to chapter 12 of Matthew.

In vs 23 the people say "This man can not be the Sond of David can He?" They were begining to wonder if this was the Meshiach, the Messiah. The had seen the miracles, heard the words of prophecy being spoken, they were wondering if this could be. But immediately the pharisees and Jewish leaders stepped in. The charged that He did His miracles by the power of Satan and turned the people against Jesus. Then the same Pharisees came and asked for another sign. Notice the words of Christ that follow.

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."


39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. 43"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

Christ condemned that generation for rejecting Him, there was a generational curse upon them. That was the unpardonable sin that they had done, and it cursed that generation and would lead eventually to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.


3. Christ's work of the cross as a 'secondary plan' something other than his original and true purpose. Resulting in the 'Parenthetical Church Age'.

Dispensationalists do not claim this. As Tim has said, provide quotes, and particularly from recent scholarship, showing us teaching this. Your third point is not anything we teach. Christ came to earth destined for the cross. It was plan 'A'. There was no doubt where His life would end up.

However, the promise of the Kingdom is a promise for the Jews that existed in that day, and which still stands today. Jesus having come, offered it as was in His power, but was rejected, as He knew He would. Why? Because that is what Messiah brings.

Just as the Jews ignore the passages of Messiah that speak of His salvific purposes, such as Isa 53, you are ignoring the passages that speak of His kingly rule and of the Jewish Kingdom. You are making the same mistake that they made/make.

[Tim C.]

Timmy it is a given you will deny the obvious.

STILL no "thwarted plan A" quotes from dispensationalists, Hitch? Gee...

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Good post, Todd.

-Tim

[Hitch]

Hitch, not only are you an idiot, but you are also misrepresenting the teachings of dispensationalism, but I will show a few things.



Notice, particularly in Matthew, the message that was preached early on. "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand." The greek there is very specific, 'at hand' means near, in close proximity.

Notice Matthew 10, when Jesus sends the disciples out to preach what He tells them:

Matthew 10:5 "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying "The Kindgom of Heaven is at hand."

Now, why is it that He told them not to go to any gentiles or samaritans? His death on the cross was for all. Later in His ministry He himself would go to the Samaritans and save a great many of them. In Matthew 28, and in Acts 1 He sends them into the whole world. Yet here they are to share the message with noone else but Israel. Why?

It's simple, because the early message that was preached was one of the Kingdom ... the Kingdom was being offered to them.



This question is weighted. I wouldn't say anything along the lines of the second half of that. Jesus came knowing the offer of the Kingdom would be rejected, and that the cross was His destination before His birth. It was prophesied in the Word that God Himself wrote, and Jesus was fully God. However, if you want the rejection and removal look to chapter 12 of Matthew.

In vs 23 the people say "This man can not be the Sond of David can He?" They were begining to wonder if this was the Meshiach, the Messiah. The had seen the miracles, heard the words of prophecy being spoken, they were wondering if this could be. But immediately the pharisees and Jewish leaders stepped in. The charged that He did His miracles by the power of Satan and turned the people against Jesus. Then the same Pharisees came and asked for another sign. Notice the words of Christ that follow.

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."


39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. 43"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

Christ condemned that generation for rejecting Him, there was a generational curse upon them. That was the unpardonable sin that they had done, and it cursed that generation and would lead eventually to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.




Dispensationalists do not claim this. As Tim has said, provide quotes, and particularly from recent scholarship, showing us teaching this. Your third point is not anything we teach. Christ came to earth destined for the cross. It was plan 'A'. There was no doubt where His life would end up.

However, the promise of the Kingdom is a promise for the Jews that existed in that day, and which still stands today. Jesus having come, offered it as was in His power, but was rejected, as He knew He would. Why? Because that is what Messiah brings.

Just as the Jews ignore the passages of Messiah that speak of His salvific purposes, such as Isa 53, you are ignoring the passages that speak of His kingly rule and of the Jewish Kingdom. You are making the same mistake that they made/make.
It's simple, because the early message that was preached was one of the Kingdom ... the Kingdom was being offered to them.

Also known as Plan A..

You did show me something BT,, a perfect example of Plan A even down to when it supposedly was changed.

[Hitch]

STILL no "thwarted plan A" quotes from dispensationalists, Hitch? Gee...

-TimIs Tod a DF?

Tod says;


It's simple, because the early message that was preached was one of the Kingdom ... the Kingdom was being offered to them.

Also known as Plan A.. LOL

[Hitch]

Hitch, not only are you an idiot, but you are also misrepresenting the teachings of dispensationalism, but I will show a few things.



Notice, particularly in Matthew, the message that was preached early on. "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand." The greek there is very specific, 'at hand' means near, in close proximity.

Notice Matthew 10, when Jesus sends the disciples out to preach what He tells them:

Matthew 10:5 "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying "The Kindgom of Heaven is at hand."

Now, why is it that He told them not to go to any gentiles or samaritans? His death on the cross was for all. Later in His ministry He himself would go to the Samaritans and save a great many of them. In Matthew 28, and in Acts 1 He sends them into the whole world. Yet here they are to share the message with noone else but Israel. Why?


Where in Scripture is 'kingdom' as used in the passages you cited defined as the temporal geo-political aka Davidic kingdom? So far neither one you you marvelous scholars of DF teaching have made any 'offer' (get it offer???lol ) to define any of Jesus' use of the term 'Kingdom' in accordance with the SRB. Are you able to cite any 'scholars' outside DF cults who maintain the marked distinctions between the KOH&KOG Cy was so famous for?


It's simple, because the early message that was preached was one of the Kingdom ... the Kingdom was being offered to them.

See above

This question is weighted. I wouldn't say anything along the lines of the second half of that. Jesus came knowing the offer of the Kingdom would be rejected, and that the cross was His destination before His birth. It was prophesied in the Word that God Himself wrote, and Jesus was fully God. However, if you want the rejection and removal look to chapter 12 of Matthew.


Cute , you wont even try to defend ol Cy here... Cant say that I blame ya but that is purpose of the thread. And youy have helped prove the point. the foundation is sandy and rotten so rotten you wont even touch it.
In vs 23 the people say "This man can not be the Sond of David can He?" They were begining to wonder if this was the Meshiach, the Messiah. The had seen the miracles, heard the words of prophecy being spoken, they were wondering if this could be. But immediately the pharisees and Jewish leaders stepped in. The charged that He did His miracles by the power of Satan and turned the people against Jesus. Then the same Pharisees came and asked for another sign. Notice the words of Christ that follow.

38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."


39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here. 43"When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

Christ condemned that generation for rejecting Him, there was a generational curse upon them. That was the unpardonable sin that they had done, and it cursed that generation and would lead eventually to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.




Dispensationalists do not claim this. As Tim has said, provide quotes, and particularly from recent scholarship, showing us teaching this. Your third point is not anything we teach. Christ came to earth destined for the cross. It was plan 'A'. There was no doubt where His life would end up.

However, the promise of the Kingdom is a promise for the Jews that existed in that day, and which still stands today. Jesus having come, offered it as was in His power, but was rejected, as He knew He would. Why? Because that is what Messiah brings.


Actually what Jesus 'offered' was repentance and regeneration and you havnet a single passage to demonstrate Jesus even on a single occasion spoke of anything except that which the Prophets has prophecied wrt the Kingdom.
Just as the Jews ignore the passages of Messiah that speak of His salvific purposes, such as Isa 53, you are ignoring the passages that speak of His kingly rule and of the Jewish Kingdom. You are making the same mistake that they made/make.
I want to make sure I understand you here Tod. You're saying that the work of the Cross and the opening of the Gospel to the whole world was prophecied? AND that this was Jesus' primary purpose to come to earth?

[Berean Todd]

Where in Scripture is 'kingdom' as used in the passages you cited defined as the temporal geo-political aka Davidic kingdom?

That was clearly taught in the OT, it was clearly what the Jews of the first century (and before, and since) expected, they often spoke to Jesus about it, and He never once corrected their understanding of it. You either are ignorant of that or ignore it.

So far neither one you you marvelous scholars of DF teaching have made any 'offer' (get it offer???lol ) to define any of Jesus' use of the term 'Kingdom' in accordance with the SRB.

I have no idea what in the heck "SRB" even is, excuse my ignorance. Try being more clear in what you are looking for.

Are you able to cite any 'scholars' outside DF cults who maintain the marked distinctions between the KOH&KOG Cy was so famous for? See above Cute , you wont even try to defend ol Cy here... Cant say that I blame ya but that is purpose of the thread.

I have no idea who it is that you mean by "Cy" either. I defend Dispensational Premillienialism as the clearest, most consistent and most accurate Biblical theology. I am not sure who this "SRB" or "Cy" is though.

I want to make sure I understand you here Tod. You're saying that the work of the Cross and the opening of the Gospel to the whole world was prophecied? AND that this was Jesus' primary purpose to come to earth?

Yes, I don't know any dispensationalist who would reject that, although we have different understandings of it than you. Jesus did come and offer the Kingdom to the Jews, and if accepted it would have been given at that time. However He knew before the foundation of the world it would be rejected, and before time began Jesus was bound for the cross. When He took upon flesh and was birthed into this world, He did so knowing full well that His plan and goal was for the cross.

It had been prophesied from centuries before, in many passages throughout the OT, most clearly Isaiah 53. God's Word is always true and it was going to pass. The cross was Plan A, and the Kingdom was legitimately offered to the Jews. They are not mutually exclussive statements.

You see, I could not offer you $5 and plan to not give it to you without contradicting myself because I am finite. God is not, He is higher than us, He is the Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator of all that is. He could come to offer the Kingdom, knowing full well that it would be rejected and that His ultimate fate was the cross. The plan from the get-go was the cross.

[Hitch]

That was clearly taught in the OT, it was clearly what the Jews of the first century (and before, and since) expected, they often spoke to Jesus about it, and He never once corrected their understanding of it. You either are ignorant of that or ignore it.

Yawn so its just another DF distinctive that has has no support. Psst maybe if you just say it louder...

I have no idea what in the heck "SRB" even is, excuse my ignorance. Try being more clear in what you are looking for.



Well Tod its obvious you are ignorant of DF teaching. .
I have no idea who it is that you mean by "Cy" either. I defend Dispensational Premillienialism as the clearest, most consistent and most accurate Biblical theology. I am not sure who this "SRB" or "Cy" is though.

See above

Yes, I don't know any dispensationalist who would reject that, although we have different understandings of it than you. Jesus did come and offer the Kingdom to the Jews, and if accepted it would have been given at that time. However He knew before the foundation of the world it would be rejected, and before time began Jesus was bound for the cross. When He took upon flesh and was birthed into this world, He did so knowing full well that His plan and goal was for the cross.


LOL Now you've let the cult cat out of the bag. Your Jesus cyniclly gives an offer that cannot but be refused. Your Jesus was less than a used car saleman. Your Jesus never existed.


It had been prophesied from centuries before, in many passages throughout the OT, most clearly Isaiah 53. God's Word is always true and it was going to pass. The cross was Plan A, and the Kingdom was legitimately offered to the Jews. They are not mutually exclussive statements.


LOL
You see, I could not offer you $5 and plan to not give it to you without contradicting myself because I am finite. God is not, He is higher than us, He is the Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator of all that is. He could come to offer the Kingdom, knowing full well that it would be rejected and that His ultimate fate was the cross. The plan from the get-go was the cross. You dont even know that the church was neither known to nor prophecied by the Prophets do you? According to DF teaching,,, found in the SRB . LOL It just cracks me up you're out here defending the rightly divided word of doctrine taken directly from Scofield's notes and you dont even recognize the source. And you call me an idiot.

[Berean Todd]

Well Tod its obvious you are ignorant of DF teaching. . See above LOL Now you've let the cult cat out of the bag.

Your an idiot spouting ad homs. Yeah, I know nothing about DF teaching. I only attend Dallas Theological Seminary and have a BS from their sister Bible College, I've only read every major theological book from Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, Bock, on and on and on ....

LOL It just cracks me up you're out here defending the rightly divided word of doctrine taken directly from Scofield's notes and you dont even recognize the source. And you call me an idiot.

Ok, I got you on the SRB ... and in case you didn't notice ... and you obviously don't ... Schofield is not in tune with any of modern dispensationalism. You are arguing with straw men and are clearly an idiot. Try reading some scholarship of, oh, the last half century at least. You ignorant schmuck.

[Hitch]

Tod says;


You see, I could not offer you $5 and plan to not give it to you without contradicting myself because I am finite. God is not, He is higher than us, He is the Omniscient, Omnipotent Creator of all that is. He could come to offer the Kingdom, knowing full well that it would be rejected and that His ultimate fate was the cross. The plan from the get-go was the cross.

Recently you made a great deal of the meaning of 'at hand' and how this realted to the 'kingdom offer'. Yet above you say that the sufferings of Messiah were pre-ordained and therefore must come to pass before kingdom could be inagurated. Hence the 'offer' is illegitimate.

But hey,, no one around here expects DFs and reality to walk too close together anyways.

[Hitch]

Your an idiot spouting ad homs. Yeah, I know nothing about DF teaching. I only attend Dallas Theological Seminary and have a BS from their sister Bible College, I've only read every major theological book from Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, Bock, on and on and on ....



Ok, I got you on the SRB ... and in case you didn't notice ... and you obviously don't ... Schofield is not in tune with any of modern dispensationalism. You are arguing with straw men and are clearly an idiot. Try reading some scholarship of, oh, the last half century at least. You ignorant schmuck. Since its obvious you dont read well I'll remind you that the reference to the SRB is clear and appears in the OP of this thread.

: DF: More Fairytales of the SRB

If you dont care to discuss it stay off the thread.


Dont worry I dont expect apologies from men lacking certain anatomy.

[Hitch]

Your an idiot spouting ad homs. Yeah, I know nothing about DF teaching. I only attend Dallas Theological Seminary and have a BS from their sister Bible College, I've only read every major theological book from Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, Bock, on and on and on ....



Ok, I got you on the SRB ... and in case you didn't notice ... and you obviously don't ... Schofield is not in tune with any of modern dispensationalism. You are arguing with straw men and are clearly an idiot. Try reading some scholarship of, oh, the last half century at least. You ignorant schmuck.Is that why Walvoord was on the editing comittee of the New Scofield Reference Bible?





The two men who most influenced Walvoord, as he developed as a thinker, were Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first President of Dallas Theological Seminary, and C.I. Scofield of the Scofield Reference Bible. Walvoord actually served on the committee to produce the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967). While he respected and valued the thinking of both of these men, Walvoord differed with them at times and developed his own ideas.

http://www.raptureready.com/who/John_Walvoord.html


Mabe yours is a different Walvoord... or perhaps he was just ineffective

[Hitch]

Your an idiot spouting ad homs. Yeah, I know nothing about DF teaching. I only attend Dallas Theological Seminary and have a BS from their sister Bible College, I've only read every major theological book from Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, Bock, on and on and on ....



Ok, I got you on the SRB ... and in case you didn't notice ... and you obviously don't ... Schofield is not in tune with any of modern dispensationalism. You are arguing with straw men and are clearly an idiot. Try reading some scholarship of, oh, the last half century at least. You ignorant schmuck.
[Study Bibles] [Christian Study]

Brief Description: First published in 1909 (sold now as the First Scofield), with the 1917 revision still being produced and sold by Oxford University Press, the Scofield is probably the best known and most widely used of the study Bibles. It has essentially become the "handbook of fundamentalism" in many circles. Synonymous with dispensational theology, the Scofield Bible has probably done more to spread the cause of dispensationalism than any other entity. It comes in various sizes, including large print and wide margin editions. The original was based on the King James Version. A 1967 update was produced and is called the New Scofield Study Bible. The Scofields that are based on translations other than the King James use the 1967 notes.


http://www.peterlaitres.net/scofield.htm

I think you mentioned BS in one of your posts...

[Hitch]

Your an idiot spouting ad homs. Yeah, I know nothing about DF teaching. I only attend Dallas Theological Seminary and have a BS from their sister Bible College, I've only read every major theological book from Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Fruchtenbaum, Bock, on and on and on ....



Ok, I got you on the SRB ... and in case you didn't notice ... and you obviously don't ... Schofield is not in tune with any of modern dispensationalism. You are arguing with straw men and are clearly an idiot. Try reading some scholarship of, oh, the last half century at least. You ignorant schmuck. Tod proclaims;


Hitch, not only are you an idiot, but you are also misrepresenting the teachings of dispensationalism, but I will show a few things

Former Dallas Theological Seminary President and student of Scofield’s theology John F. Walvoord, has written concerning the Scofield Reference Bible:





This edition of the Bible, which has had unprecedented circulation, has popularized premillennial teachings and provided ready helps of interpretation. It has probably done more to extend premillennialism in the last half century than any other volume. This accounts for the many attempts to discredit this work…The reputation of the Scofield Bible is curious because each succeeding writer apparently believes that his predecessors have not succeeded in disposing of this work once and for all. This belief apparently is well-founded, for the Scofield Bible continues to be issued year after year in greater numbers than any of its refuters.[i]


http://www.poweredbychrist.homestead.com/files/cyrus/scofield.htm



On par with DFs the world over Tod you're half right. DF is being misrepresented , and you're doing it well. You combine the practiced spiritual indignation and disregard for truth so neccessary to maintaining a proper DF perspective.

[Tim C.]

Is Tod a DF?

Tod says;


It's simple, because the early message that was preached was one of the Kingdom ... the Kingdom was being offered to them.

Also known as Plan A.. LOL

Still no quotes concerning this alleged "thwarted plan A" of the kingdom offer? Gee, Hitch, I wonder why you haven't posted these quotes yet?

Btw, apply your flawed logic to Genesis 3 and guess what?

Hitch: LOL Now you've let the cult cat out of the bag. Your Jesus cyniclly gives an offer that cannot but be refused. Your Jesus was less than a used car saleman. Your Jesus never existed.

Lets apply your flawed logic to Genesis 3. Hitch's cult ideas are let out of the bag. Hitch's god cynically promised life to Adam. Hitch's god was less than a used car salesman. Hitch's god never existed.

-Tim

[Hitch]

To return now to the dispensational teaching about the kingdom for Israel, they teach that Jesus came to earth the first time fully intending to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with his chosen people, Israel.

Clarence Larkin (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 51), in describing the ministry of John the Baptist as a forerunner to Christ, said: 'Prepare the way of the Lord for what? Not for the Cross but for the Kingdom.'

M.R. DeHaan, well-known radio preacher, made the following statement with reference to the first advent of our Lord (The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): ... the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven's King on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross..

W.E. Blackstone (Jesus is Coming, p. 46), who is said to share the honor with C.I. Scofield as one of those who did most to perpetuate dispensationalism in this country, said concerning the first advent: 'He would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him.'


http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=9%7C21%7C178

[Tim C.]

You are not taking the whole of Scripture into account, Hitch, as mentioned earlier in which I gave you several important Scriptures showing that the rejection of Messiah was part of God's plan. We don't just skip over these important passages when studying the obvious "kingdom offer" theme in Scripture. We're not as dumb as you look.

Now, back to the Genesis 3 issue. A simpleminded (or perhaps deceptive) person may isolate a piece of Genesis 3 and conclude "God's plan failed." How do you answer that silly miscomprehension of the issue, Hitch? After all, they would merely be applying your sloppy "logic" consistently to other similar issues in Scripture. You don't seem to want to answer this.

-Tim

[Hitch]

You are not taking the whole of Scripture into account, Hitch, as mentioned earlier in which I gave you several important Scriptures showing that the rejection of Messiah was part of God's plan. We don't just skip over these important passages when studying the obvious "kingdom offer" theme in Scripture. We're not as dumb as you look.

Now, back to the Genesis 3 issue. A simpleminded (or perhaps deceptive) person may isolate a piece of Genesis 3 and conclude "God's plan failed." How do you answer that silly miscomprehension of the issue, Hitch? After all, they would merely be applying your sloppy "logic" consistently to other similar issues in Scripture. You don't seem to want to answer this.

-Tim
Clarence Larkin (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 51), in describing the ministry of John the Baptist as a forerunner to Christ, said: 'Prepare the way of the Lord for what? Not for the Cross but for the Kingdom.'

M.R. DeHaan, well-known radio preacher, made the following statement with reference to the first advent of our Lord (The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): ... the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven's King on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross..

W.E. Blackstone (Jesus is Coming, p. 46), who is said to share the honor with C.I. Scofield as one of those who did most to perpetuate dispensationalism in this country, said concerning the first advent: 'He would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him.'

[Hitch]

The Church in Prophecy


In dispensationalism the Church is deemed a new and unprophesied aside to God's major plan for the Jews.

John Walvoord writes of the Church: "It becomes apparent that a new thing has been formed — the body of Christ. It did not exist before Pentecost, as there was no work of the baptism of the Spirit to form it. The concept of the body is foreign to the Old Testament and to Israel's promises. Something new had begun. . . There is good evidence that the age itself is a parenthesis in the divine program of God as it was revealed in the Old Testament. . . . [T]he present age [is] an unexpected and unpredicted parenthesis as far as Old Testament prophecy is concerned."'


https://host186.ipowerweb.com/~kenneth1/dispensational_part2.htm

Emphasis added