Flowers

[Hitch]

Where have all the DFs gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the DFs gone?

A long time a go

Where have all the DFs gone

Gone for raptures ,,, every one


When will they ever learn?

When will they ever learn?


Where have all the raptures gone?

Long time passing

Where have all the raptures gone?

A long time ago

Where have all the raptures gone?

Postponed ,,, every one


When will they ever learn

When will they ever learn



Where have all the postponments gone?


Longtime passing

Where have all the postponements gone?

From a long time ago


Where have have all the postponements gone?

Gone 'Progessive" every one


When will they ever learn

When,,,,

[Hitch]

Watch for the 'B' side;

I Aint gonna Work on Walvoord's Farm No More

[Manasseh]

Hitch's theme song

Don't know much about theology

Don't know much about Prophecy

Don't know much about Daniel's book

Don't know much about the Hebrew I took

What I do know is that I love Preterism

And I know that if you loved it too

What a wonderful world it would be

Don't know much about the tribulation

Don't know much about History

Don't know much about 70AD

But I do know that I love josephus

And I know that if you loved him to

What a wonderful world it would be

M

[Hitch]

Hitch's theme song

Don't know much about theology

Don't know much about Prophecy

Don't know much about Daniel's book

Don't know much about the Hebrew I took

What I do know is that I love Preterism

And I know that if you loved it too

What a wonderful world it would be

Don't know much about the tribulation

Don't know much about History

Don't know much about 70AD

But I do know that I love josephus

And I know that if you loved him to

What a wonderful world it would be

M LOL Perf

[Abigail]

Hitch's theme song

Don't know much about theology

Don't know much about Prophecy

Don't know much about Daniel's book

Don't know much about the Hebrew I took

What I do know is that I love Preterism

And I know that if you loved it too

What a wonderful world it would be

Don't know much about the tribulation

Don't know much about History

Don't know much about 70AD

But I do know that I love josephus

And I know that if you loved him to

What a wonderful world it would be

M

That was very funny Manasseh :lol:

[Tim C.]

Where have all the DFs gone?

Little need to post anything when no challenging arguments are being raised.

Btw Manasseh, I love Sam Cooke.

-Tim

[Hitch]

The challenge to delinate and define from Scripture the various 'dispensations' is still open.

[Manasseh]

Little need to post anything when no challenging arguments are being raised.

Btw Manasseh, I love Sam Cooke.

-Tim



Hi Tim

I noticed the quote from George Peters in your sig line, I like it. What is the name of the book and is it worth reading?

M

[Hitch]

Little need to post anything when no challenging arguments are being raised.

Btw Manasseh, I love Sam Cooke.

-Tim

Interesting,,, a song without lyrics.

[Tim C.]

The challenge to delinate and define from Scripture the various 'dispensations' is still open.

Whats the problem? Its been explained many times before.

Here is a post where I describe the final three dispensations:

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=157&topic_id=8494&mesg_id=8550&page=4

"Dispensational Theology is formatted around the different epochs (i.e., "dispensations") in Scriptural history. Three of these epochs are of special importance here:

1.) The Old Covenant administration for Israel. This age began with the giving of the Law through the prophet Moses. It runs up and ends at the coming of the Lord, smashing of Gentile powers, and establishing of the kingdom age. The course of this Old Covenant age is prophetically outlined in Daniel 2, 7 & 9.

2.) The Messianic Kingdom administration for Israel. This age begins at the return of the Lord and establishing of the kingdom. It ends at the final resurrection of damnation, and final judgment. This age is prophetically outlined in Revelation 20.

3.) The present Grace administration for the Church. This special present age "interrupts" the Old Covenant administration for Israel. Thats why most of God's plan for Israel has been fulfilled, with just a small portion yet to be fulfilled in the future (<--- notice the "futurist premillennialism" here). The present age forms a "gap" or "parenthasis" in the prophetically outlined program for Israel."

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Hi Tim

I noticed the quote from George Peters in your sig line, I like it. What is the name of the book and is it worth reading?

It comes from his book The Theocratic Kingdom. And, YES, it is well worth the read! It is my favorite book on premillennialism.

Check here:

http://www.inthebeginning.org/schoettle/bookpreviews/peters/preview.htm

-Tim

[Hitch]

Whats the problem? Its been explained many times before. the problem is the dearth of NT passeges in support, combined with yet another set of 'dispensations'.

You grand assertion that X passage out lines Y dispensation is notheing more than an assertion. You need to have clear apostolic support. That means clear NT teachings that also define the 'dispensations' the same way you do.

.) The Old Covenant administration for Israel. This age began with the giving of the Law through the prophet Moses. It runs up and ends at the coming of the Lord, smashing of Gentile powers, and establishing of the kingdom age. The course of this Old Covenant age is prophetically outlined in Daniel 2, 7 & 9.

Ovbiously the old line DF position taught that the dispensation changed at the cross.
What makes your assertion more accurate than Scofield's?


The Messianic Kingdom administration for Israel. This age begins at the return of the Lord and establishing of the kingdom. It ends at the final resurrection of damnation, and final judgment. This age is prophetically outlined in Revelation 20. Yawm Making unfounded assertions will only work in DF circles. Where is your apostolic support?


3.) The present Grace administration for the Church. This special present age "interrupts" the Old Covenant administration for Israel. Thats why most of God's plan for Israel has been fulfilled, with just a small portion yet to be fulfilled in the future (<--- notice the "futurist premillennialism" here). The present age forms a "gap" or "parenthasis" in the prophetically outlined program for Israel."


What apostolic teachings do you cite to support this GAP theory?

What apostolic teachings do you cite that speaks of the church as an 'interruption' of the Old covenant?

What apostolic teachings do you cite in support of you implied assertion that the OLD Covenant will be revived and will replace the church?

[Manasseh]

It comes from his book The Theocratic Kingdom. And, YES, it is well worth the read! It is my favorite book on premillennialism.

Check here:

http://www.inthebeginning.org/schoettle/bookpreviews/peters/preview.htm

-Tim

Thanks Tim it looks like a good book, I'll consider buying that one. A book I can recommend is "Elements of Dispensational Truth VOL 1" by Roy Huebner. It's easily the best book on the subject you can get. Here is a link to the table of contents. http://www.withchrist.org/edt.htm There is a vol 2 which deals more with prophecy. I have both Vol's, well worth getting.

M

[Tim C.]

me: Whats the problem? Its been explained many times before.

Hitch: the problem is the dearth of NT passeges in support, combined with yet another set of 'dispensations'.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Speak English, Hitch.

Hitch: You grand assertion that X passage out lines Y dispensation is notheing more than an assertion. You need to have clear apostolic support. That means clear NT teachings that also define the 'dispensations' the same way you do.

Gee Hitch, even the simpleminded can read their Bibles and understand that a transition from Mosaic Law to the Christian Era took place in the first century. So, we have at least two dispensations taught in Scripture. And, of course, the giving of Mosaic Law did not come about till the time of Moses, so obviously there are pre-Moses dispensations in Scripture. And, of course, the present age is most certainly NOT the Messianic Kingdom age of Bible covenant and prophecy, therefore there is a future kingdom dispensation. So we have at least four dispensations in Scriptural history. Yet, since we know that the dispensation concerning the "calling out of Abram" did not occur until God called out Abram, and since there were most certainly dispensations in pre-Abram times, then this brings us to at least five dispensations. Five of the seven dispensations are readily apparent in Scriptural history. Are you going to sit around and whine about our inability to discern, with precision, the pre-Abram dispensations? Is that your gripe? Get real. I can take these same "criticisms" and use them to bash your unscriptural "covenant theology" into pieces.

me: The Old Covenant administration for Israel. This age began with the giving of the Law through the prophet Moses. It runs up and ends at the coming of the Lord, smashing of Gentile powers, and establishing of the kingdom age. The course of this Old Covenant age is prophetically outlined in Daniel 2, 7 & 9.

Ovbiously the old line DF position taught that the dispensation changed at the cross.

What makes your assertion more accurate than Scofield's?

First of all, you are wrong that it "changed at the cross." They place the dispensational change-up at Pentecost.

Secondly, I also see a dispensational change-up at that time. You seem to be unaware of the fact that dispensational theology teaches that the present age interrupts the Mosaic Law age for Israel - leaving the brief "Great Tribulation" period for the future. Are you really this uneducated on dispensational theology, Hitch?

me: The Messianic Kingdom administration for Israel. This age begins at the return of the Lord and establishing of the kingdom. It ends at the final resurrection of damnation, and final judgment. This age is prophetically outlined in Revelation 20.

Hitch: Yawm Making unfounded assertions will only work in DF circles. Where is your apostolic support?

See? Thats the problem. Non-dispensationalists don't seem to even know what the Messianic Kingdom is to begin with. If a non-dispensationalist doesn't even understand the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants (i.e., the kingdom age), then how can any fruitful discussion take place? You people need to study your Bibles and learn what the kingdom is in the first place! THEN some fruitful discussion could take place between us.

me: The present Grace administration for the Church. This special present age "interrupts" the Old Covenant administration for Israel. Thats why most of God's plan for Israel has been fulfilled, with just a small portion yet to be fulfilled in the future (<--- notice the "futurist premillennialism" here). The present age forms a "gap" or "parenthasis" in the prophetically outlined program for Israel."

Hitch: What apostolic teachings do you cite to support this GAP theory?

I would start with the FACT that the Great Tribulation period is future as concerning the church age (2Thessalonians 2). Are you unaware of the fact that this "Great Tribulation" period immediately PRECEDES the kingdom age (Daniel 7)?

Hitch: What apostolic teachings do you cite that speaks of the church as an 'interruption' of the Old covenant?

What apostolic teachings do you cite in support of you implied assertion that the OLD Covenant will be revived and will replace the church?

The revelation of the Mystery, my friend. Read the writings of the Apostle Paul.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Thanks Tim it looks like a good book, I'll consider buying that one. A book I can recommend is "Elements of Dispensational Truth VOL 1" by Roy Huebner. It's easily the best book on the subject you can get. Here is a link to the table of contents. http://www.withchrist.org/edt.htm There is a vol 2 which deals more with prophecy. I have both Vol's, well worth getting.

I've heard of it but never read it. I'll have to look into it. Thanks!

-Tim

[Bill the Cat]

Hitch,

long time no see. I'm taking a loooong break from apologetics, but had a minute to ask you a question. What do you think is the "end of the age" in Matt 13 and Matt 24?

[Hitch]

First of all, you are wrong that it "changed at the cross." They place the dispensational change-up at Pentecost.

Secondly, I also see a dispensational change-up at that time. You seem to be unaware of the fact that dispensational theology teaches that the present age interrupts the Mosaic Law age for Israel - leaving the brief "Great Tribulation" period for the future. Are you really this uneducated on dispensational theology, Hitch?


Well one of us is woefully ignorant of DF teaching;

This Dispensation of Law extends from Sinai to Calvary:from Exodus to the Cross'-
SRB P 94.

Obviously you're not up to the task, maybe you know some one who is?

[Hitch]

Hitch,

long time no see. I'm taking a loooong break from apologetics, but had a minute to ask you a question. What do you think is the "end of the age" in Matt 13 and Matt 24?Hey Cat;


I can take M 13 either way but I lean toward the more general 'ultimate end' . Mat is much more specific. The preceeding chapters are clearly directed as warnings against the comtemporary powers and generation, and they set the context for Chp 24.

[Tim C.]

First of all, you are wrong that it "changed at the cross." They place the dispensational change-up at Pentecost.

Secondly, I also see a dispensational change-up at that time. You seem to be unaware of the fact that dispensational theology teaches that the present age interrupts the Mosaic Law age for Israel - leaving the brief "Great Tribulation" period for the future. Are you really this uneducated on dispensational theology, Hitch?


Well one of us is woefully ignorant of DF teaching;

This Dispensation of Law extends from Sinai to Calvary:from Exodus to the Cross'-
SRB P 94.

lol! And which one of us is failing to note the "general" nature of those statements, while failing at the same time to compare the Study notes in Acts 2 and 10 which pinpoint the dispensational change-up to the time of Pentecost? I myself have referred to "pre-cross dispensations" in internet discussions, yet this doesn't place the dispensational change-up at Luke 23:46 rather than Acts 2. Use your head, man.

Obviously you're not up to the task, maybe you know some one who is?

Obviously I am. You haven't responded to the substance of my other post, and I'm also guessing that you are unwilling to "define and deliniate" the two-covenant-scheme of covenantalism (since it simply can not be done, as I suggested in that last post).

Isn't it funny how covenantalists sit around and grope about our alleged inability to discern the dispensations in Scriptural history? It is SOOOO easy to do. As I said, even a fool can read their Bible and notice the dispensational change-up from Mosaic Law to the Christian Era - in the New Testament. Yet, these same covenantalists can not present one single little stinking scrap of evidence for their "two covenants balanced around the garden of Eden" theory.

-Tim

[Tim C.]

The challenge to delinate and define from Scripture the various 'dispensations' is still open.

This is actually quite a humorous "challenge." Even covenantalists are somewhat able to discern the dispensations in Scriptural history. See here for example:

"Although the covenant of grace includes various dispensations of history, it is essentially one. From the promise in the garden (Gen. 3:15), through the covenant made with Noah (Gen. 6 - 9), to the day that the covenant was established with Abraham, there is abundant evidence of God's grace. With Abraham a new beginning is made which the later, Sinaitic covenant implements and strengthens. At Sinai the covenant assumes a national form and stress is laid on the law of God. This is not intended to alter the gracious character of the covenant, however (Gal. 3:17 - 18), but it is to serve to train Israel until the time would come when God himself would appear in its midst. In Jesus the new form of the covenant that had been promised by the prophets is manifest, and that which was of a temporary nature in the old form of the covenant disappears (Jer. 31:31 - 34; Heb. 8)."

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/covenant.htm

Of course, since covenantalists fail to realize the special nature of the present age, and mistakingly make it into the kingdom, then their count of dispensations does not come to seven.

But I think the REAL challenge here is to covenantalists, whom, as the author above, opine that "although the covenant of grace includes various dispensations of history, it is essentially one." They need to prove:

1.) The existence of this so-called "covenant of grace" which has allegedly been in operation ever since the Fall.

2.) That the Scriptural dispensations are actually "one" in this alleged "covenant of grace dispensation" which has allegedly been going on ever since the Fall.

Are covenantalists able to "delinate and define" these alleged covenants with Scriptural proofs? And are they able to present Bible texts which suggest that "grace" and "law" are allegedly "one" manifestation of this hypothetical "covenant of grace"?

-Tim

[Hitch]

lol! And which one of us is failing to note the "general" nature of those statements, while failing at the same time to compare the Study notes in Acts 2 and 10 which pinpoint the dispensational change-up to the time of Pentecost? I myself have referred to "pre-cross dispensations" in internet discussions, yet this doesn't place the dispensational change-up at Luke 23:46 rather than Acts 2. Use your head, man.


Obviosuly I diddnt need to mention this specific internal conflict.

[Hitch]

Obviously I am. You haven't responded to the substance of my other post, and I'm also guessing that you are unwilling to "define and deliniate" the two-covenant-scheme of covenantalism (since it simply can not be done, as I suggested in that last post).

I am yet to see anything you posted of substance, do so and I will respond.

[Hitch]

This is actually quite a humorous "challenge." Even covenantalists are somewhat able to discern the dispensations in Scriptural history. See here for example:

"Although the covenant of grace includes various dispensations of history, it is essentially one. From the promise in the garden (Gen. 3:15), through the covenant made with Noah (Gen. 6 - 9), to the day that the covenant was established with Abraham, there is abundant evidence of God's grace. With Abraham a new beginning is made which the later, Sinaitic covenant implements and strengthens. At Sinai the covenant assumes a national form and stress is laid on the law of God. This is not intended to alter the gracious character of the covenant, however (Gal. 3:17 - 18), but it is to serve to train Israel until the time would come when God himself would appear in its midst. In Jesus the new form of the covenant that had been promised by the prophets is manifest, and that which was of a temporary nature in the old form of the covenant disappears (Jer. 31:31 - 34; Heb. 8)."

http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/covenant.htm

Of course, since covenantalists fail to realize the special nature of the present age, and mistakingly make it into the kingdom, then their count of dispensations does not come to seven.

But I think the REAL challenge here is to covenantalists, whom, as the author above, opine that "although the covenant of grace includes various dispensations of history, it is essentially one." They need to prove:

1.) The existence of this so-called "covenant of grace" which has allegedly been in operation ever since the Fall.

2.) That the Scriptural dispensations are actually "one" in this alleged "covenant of grace dispensation" which has allegedly been going on ever since the Fall.

Are covenantalists able to "delinate and define" these alleged covenants with Scriptural proofs? And are they able to present Bible texts which suggest that "grace" and "law" are allegedly "one" manifestation of this hypothetical "covenant of grace"?

-TimIts time for you to define and deliniate ,from Scripture the various 'Dispensations' with two or more references specificly supporting.

But I think the REAL challenge here is to covenantalists,

LOL Well this will have some power after you make a successful defense ,from Scripture, of the various dispensations. Until then if you have a challenge open a thread.

[Tim C.]

me: lol! And which one of us is failing to note the "general" nature of those statements, while failing at the same time to compare the Study notes in Acts 2 and 10 which pinpoint the dispensational change-up to the time of Pentecost? I myself have referred to "pre-cross dispensations" in internet discussions, yet this doesn't place the dispensational change-up at Luke 23:46 rather than Acts 2. Use your head, man.

Hitch: Obviosuly I diddnt need to mention this specific internal conflict.

Ah yes, only the poor reading comprehension skills of a preterist could conclude there is some sort of "internal conflict" here.

I've already pointed out to you that you are making Scofield contradict his own study notes. Now, either Scofield didn't notice this (unlikely), or you have misinterpreted what he meant in a particular note (likely). Use your head.

me: Obviously I am. You haven't responded to the substance of my other post, and I'm also guessing that you are unwilling to "define and deliniate" the two-covenant-scheme of covenantalism (since it simply can not be done, as I suggested in that last post).

Hitch: I am yet to see anything you posted of substance, do so and I will respond.

I pointed out that the more recent dispensations are readily apparent in Scripture, and that anyone who reads the Bible is able, at least, to discern the dispensational change-up from Mosaic Law to the Christian Era in the first century. So, the existence of dispensations in Scriptural history is an established Scriptural fact.

Then, I linked you to a covenantalist article in which the covenantalist author was somewhat able to discern the same basic dispensations in Scriptural history. So, apparently it is just a small handful of antidispensationalists who don't seem to notice these obvious dispensations in Scriptural history.

Then, I turned your own criticism against you, and pointed out the fact that there is not one single little stinking scrap of evidence for the two-covenant-system of covenant theology. The so-called "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are taught nowhere in Scripture. They are not even hinted at. Covenantalists certainly cannot "define and delinate" their two-covenant-system from Scripture, nor back them up with your silly "two or more NT passages" nonsense. So, the covenantalists will flunk the same "challenge"! lol! Apparently, the hypocritical nature of your "challenge" does not bother you.

Hitch: Its time for you to define and deliniate ,from Scripture the various 'Dispensations' with two or more references specificly supporting.

The dispensations are readily apparent in Scriptural history, and the existence of these dispensations is admitted by covenantalists. I'm not going to sit around and try to meet the specifics of your artificial "challenge." Especially since your own theology miserably fails your own "challenge."

-Tim

[Tim C.]

Hey Hitch, here is another covenantalist who has attempted to "define and delinate" the dispensations for readers such as yourself.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13%7C65%7C366

-Tim

[Manasseh]

Hey Hitch, here is another covenantalist who has attempted to "define and delinate" the dispensations for readers such as yourself.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13%7C65%7C366

-Tim

If you study the scofieldian dispenatational system it is actually based on the Dispensational or ageism system of Isaac Watts who was covenantal.

M

[Hitch]

Ah yes, only the poor reading comprehension skills of a preterist could conclude there is some sort of "internal conflict" here.

I've already pointed out to you that you are making Scofield contradict his own study notes. Now, either Scofield didn't notice this (unlikely), or you have misinterpreted what he meant in a particular note (likely). Use your head.



I pointed out that the more recent dispensations are readily apparent in Scripture, and that anyone who reads the Bible is able, at least, to discern the dispensational change-up from Mosaic Law to the Christian Era in the first century. So, the existence of dispensations in Scriptural history is an established Scriptural fact.

Then, I linked you to a covenantalist article in which the covenantalist author was somewhat able to discern the same basic dispensations in Scriptural history. So, apparently it is just a small handful of antidispensationalists who don't seem to notice these obvious dispensations in Scriptural history.

Then, I turned your own criticism against you, and pointed out the fact that there is not one single little stinking scrap of evidence for the two-covenant-system of covenant theology. The so-called "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are taught nowhere in Scripture. They are not even hinted at. Covenantalists certainly cannot "define and delinate" their two-covenant-system from Scripture, nor back them up with your silly "two or more NT passages" nonsense. So, the covenantalists will flunk the same "challenge"! lol! Apparently, the hypocritical nature of your "challenge" does not bother you.



The dispensations are readily apparent in Scriptural history, and the existence of these dispensations is admitted by covenantalists. I'm not going to sit around and try to meet the specifics of your artificial "challenge." Especially since your own theology miserably fails your own "challenge."

-Tim

I've already pointed out to you that you are making Scofield contradict his own study notes. Now, either Scofield didn't notice this (unlikely), or you have misinterpreted what he meant in a particular note (likely). Use your head.I copied it directly and provided the page number. LOL

It evident you dont have anything to support a defintion and diliniation of any specific 'Dispensation'. You would have posted it rather than hide behind schoolyard innuendo.Predictible, but booring.

[Tim C.]

I copied it directly and provided the page number. LOL

It's your interpretation which is the problem here, not the quote or page number.

It evident you dont have anything to support a defintion and diliniation of any specific 'Dispensation'.

Incorrect. I have pointed out the fact that the more recent dispensations are readily apparent in Scriptural history, and I have pointed you to COVENANTALISTS (i.e., our opponents) who teach this fact. They discern the same basic dispensations as we, with the exception of their confusing the present age for the Messianic Kingdom age. They do not strain to discern the different pre-Abram dispensations, but no problem, for we acknowledge that it is difficult to discern with precision those ancient ages due to the fact that our only imput on those times is Moses' brief recap of history up to his own time found in the book of Genesis.

Apparently it is just a small handful of antidispensationalists (i.e., you and your friends) who are unable to see these obvious dispensations in Scriptural history.

You would have posted it rather than hide behind schoolyard innuendo.Predictible, but booring.

I think your challenge is artificial and hypocritical. Where on earth did you get this idea that the dispensations should be "defined and deliniated and backed up with two or more NT references"? Where did that idea come from? You just made it up? Oh, okay, well in that case I will ask you covenantalists to "define and deliniate the two-covenant system of CT and back up both covenants with two or more NT passages." Of course, covenant theology will flunk this test cold.

-Tim