Dispensational Discussion: Split from Dee Dee's preterism poll thread

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

It's not eschatology that I'm condemning per se. I really don't concern myself with eschatology as much as it would seem. What I'm condemning is the theological framework behind certain brands of futurism -- Dispensationalism being the biggest dog. It has zero (Yes, "zero") regard for the Covenant of Christ, and deserves to be shot down much worse than what I typed above.

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome? What do you mean by "Covenant of Christ" and how do you think futurism disregards it? (Just trying to follow you here....)

[Straylight]

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome?

Other than that it's rejects the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church)? Other than that it rejects the idea that Christ extinguished the distinction between Jew and Gentile for all time, and created a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood through his blood?

Hmm...

Or are you not aware of the completely irreconcilable differences between the covenantal (i.e. historic) view of Christ and his Church and the dispensational one?

[dizzle]

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome? What do you mean by "Covenant of Christ" and how do you think futurism disregards it? (Just trying to follow you here....)

Pey - just making sure we are being precise. He didn't say futurism disregards it, he says dispensationalism does. While all dispensationalists are futurists, the converse is not true.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Other than that it's rejects the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church)?

How so? In what way does it reject this relationship?


Other than that it rejects the idea that Christ extinguished the distinction between Jew and Gentile for all time...

What do you mean?

...and created a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood through his blood?

Dispensationalists don't reject this, do they?


Hmm...

(?)


Or are you not aware of the completely irreconcilable differences between the covenantal (i.e. historic) view of Christ and his Church and the dispensational one?

We see differences among various theological views all the time, but the mere presence of a difference of viewpoint alone might not merit the severity of your language. What I'm asking you to do is to explain how you see the differences between these views such that I can understand the severity of your denunciation, as well as the nature of it.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Pey - just making sure we are being precise. He didn't say futurism disregards it, he says dispensationalism does. While all dispensationalists are futurists, the converse is not true.

He said that the theological framework behind certain brands of futurism disregards it, naming dispensationalism as the "biggest dog." I'm interested in his contentions about this "theological framework" of some brands of futurism (apparently ungirding dispensationalism as well as other brands of futurism---which have yet to be disclosed). I want to know what this "framework" is and precisely why he finds it so objectionable.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Other than that it's rejects the relationship between the Head (Christ) and the Body (the Church)?

Survey SAYS.... :no:



Other than that it rejects the idea that Christ extinguished the distinction between Jew and Gentile for all time,

Romans 11
25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.



So what do ya make of Paul's distinction and explanation that Israel will again be treated as a nation because God's calling them is irrevocable?

and created a chosen race, a holy nation, and a royal priesthood through his blood?

Yes, we do in fact support this fully.



Or are you not aware of the completely irreconcilable differences between the covenantal (i.e. historic) view of Christ and his Church and the dispensational one?

Nice qualifier. It is true that covenental and dispensational views are almost totally different, but to say that covenental is the historic view is incorrect. See the quote from Romans above to show that things will be 'a changing again.

[Straylight]

25For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;

26and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
"THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION,
HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27"THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM,
WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

28From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

[/verse]

So what do ya make of Paul's distinction and explanation that Israel will again be treated as a nation because God's calling them is irrevocable?

I fail to see in the above passage where it says they'll "again be treated as a nation".

There is only one holy nation, for Jew or Gentile.

Secondly, it says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. In what way does that mean that they have a seperate, valid covenant outside of Christ? How exactly does one reach that conclusion? Everyone has the same covenant in Christ, and the passage above means that God won't give up on those who he first promised this covenant to. Not that they're under some other valid plan in the here and now.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I fail to see in the above passage where it says they'll "again be treated as a nation".

by calling them out specifically. What other nation does God do that for? Does He say that all the Ninevites will be saved? No. When God calls out a specific nation, as He did in romans 11, that, my friend, is dispensationalism.


There is only one holy nation, for Jew or Gentile.

So why doesn't God say that all Egypt will be saved? It's dealing with Israel as a distinct entity. Not a separate covenant, mind you, but a different way of dealing with them.

Secondly, it says that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. In what way does that mean that they have a seperate, valid covenant outside of Christ?

Here fishy fishy...:trout: Never said they did. God will be dealing with Israel as a whole nation specifically, and no other nation gets that privilege. Dispyism anyone??


How exactly does one reach that conclusion? Everyone has the same covenant in Christ, and the passage above means that God won't give up on those who he first promised this covenant to. Not that they're under some other valid plan in the here and now.

Never said they were. Please try to understand Dispensationalism a bit better before you toss the ol' fish around...

[dizzle]

Guys I am going to have to ask that this particular discussion be the subject of a new thread please. This is kind of a light-hearted poll for very informal research.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Guys I am going to have to ask that this particular discussion be the subject of a new thread please. This is kind of a light-hearted poll for very informal research.
cool, I'll report it and have it split into eschatology

[Straylight]

Apologies for derailing the other thread, but I've pretty much said my piece already. If someone else wants to engage dispensationalism on all the fine details, then be my guest.....

[Hitch]

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome? What do you mean by "Covenant of Christ" and how do you think futurism disregards it? (Just trying to follow you here....)
Hmmmm maybe the imaginary nature of the 'Dispensations'?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Hmmmm maybe the imaginary nature of the 'Dispensations'?

It seems srtaylight had something else in mind---an alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism as well as "other (unspecified) brands of futurism" which he said "disregards the Covenant of Christ." He also intimated that his concern was not really eschatological in nature. My initial question to him concerned these allegations (and others), which were presented in rather severe, condemnatory lanuage.

Bill began to engage him, but then he withdrew.

What you, hitch, call the "imaginary nature of the dispensations" is another matter. But I'd say that God does in fact dispense his revelation in a way that has historically entailed human stewardship, and that human responsibility toward what God has revealed has changed throughout Biblical history. As revelation unfolded, human responsibility toward new truth which God revealed progressed accordingly. And though there are, and have been, all kinds of debates surrounding covenant and dispensation, law and gospel, antinomianism, neonomianism, and theonomy, I don't suppose we'll be able to know exactly what straylight meant---unless he decides to tell us.

I just wanted to know what straylight meant by this alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," as well as what these "other brands of futurism" were....

[Straylight]

I just wanted to know what straylight meant by this alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," as well as what these "other brands of futurism" were....

Dispensationalism is not an "alleged" theology. It espouses a theology first and foremost, then an eschatological view second.

And I told you what I condemned already. I'm not sure why you don't understand: Anything and everything other than Covenantalism. And Dispensationalism is not Covenantalism. It's the complete antithesis of it.

If you aren't acquainted with the sharp opposition that covenantal and dispensational theologies have between each other, then I encourage you to look up the terms. I shouldn't have to explain "why" they disagree -- That's the job of dictionaries.

As for other brands of futurism, I'm merely talking about the madness associated with people who read their newspapers too much, but not their bibles. However, there are covenantally minded futurists, and I have no problem with them (Like I said, it's not eschatology that I care about necessarily. It's the theology and beliefs behind certain views that I care about.).

OK, now I've said my piece. I hope.

And btw, I'm not "pulling out", as you think -- I just see no point in a "debate". All I have to say is that I'm Covenantal -- And that's that. There's no reason to talk about every little point or theory that dispensationalists hold -- I only have to disagree with them on their central one in order to write it off completely.

[Straylight]

I should also mention that when I say "covenant theology", I'm not just referring to the Reformed view, but more in a generic sense. I would also include the New Perspective's brand of covenantalism and eschatology as well.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Dispensationalism is not an "alleged" theology. It espouses a theology first and foremost, then an eschatological view second.

I meant, by the word "alleged," the allegations you made about dispensationalism ; I never meant to suggest that dispensationalism was an "alleged theology." You alleged that there was a "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism" which "disregarded the Covenant of Christ." That, specifically, is what you "alleged," and I simply asked you to tell me about it and describe exactly how it did so. What are the features of this "theological framework" and how do you think it "disregards the Covenant of Christ?"


And I told you what I condemned already. I'm not sure why you don't understand: Anything and everything other than Covenantalism. And Dispensationalism is not Covenantalism. It's the complete antithesis of it.

I understand what you've told me, but what you've told me sidestepped my actual question. You haven't described this supposed "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," and you haven't explained just why this undescribed "theological framework" is said by you to "disregard the covenant of Christ." To merely say things like, "Dispensationalism is not Covenantalism," or "Go read a dictionary," or "It's people who read their newspapers too much" with a foul attitude isn't a proper reply. I'm not angry. I'm not out to get you. And I'm not ignorant of covenant thought or dispensationalism. I just asked you to explain further your views, and that's not an unreasonable thing to ask. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and appear either unable or unwilling to cash it in.


If you aren't acquainted with the sharp opposition that covenantal and dispensational theologies have between each other, then I encourage you to look up the terms. I shouldn't have to explain "why" they disagree -- That's the job of dictionaries.

It's of course entirely up to you whether or not you want to explain anything at all. But a dictionary won't miraculously open your mind to me or anyone else about what this mysterious "theological framework" of yours is. Are you now telling me that the "framework" you alluded to earlier is simply dispensationalism itself and that you think it worthy of hellish obliteration merely because it doesn't espouse covenant as the driving concept of its theology? You don't, as you say, have to explain why you think as you do---but then, if that's your sentiment, then why make any assertions here in the first place???


As for other brands of futurism, I'm merely talking about the madness associated with people who read their newspapers too much, but not their bibles. However, there are covenantally minded futurists, and I have no problem with them (Like I said, it's not eschatology that I care about necessarily. It's the theology and beliefs behind certain views that I care about.).

So the "other brands of futurism" are, specifically, those whose adherents read their newspapers too much? While I'm sure that no covenant theologians or eschatologians "read their newspapers too much," this isn't an answer as to what the theological framework of such avid newshounds might be....


OK, now I've said my piece. I hope.

I think you've just done a bit of vacuous ranting....


And btw, I'm not "pulling out", as you think -- I just see no point in a "debate". All I have to say is that I'm Covenantal -- And that's that. There's no reason to talk about every little point or theory that dispensationalists hold -- I only have to disagree with them on their central one in order to write it off completely.

Oakey-doakey. But in your case, you've not really explained anything; rather, you've just made some unfounded assertions with a condemnatory edge. I wasn't asking for a debate---merely a little elucidation. And while it's true that, subjectively speaking, you can "write off completely" whatever you want, if you make public assertions in a debate forum, one could at least be justified in thinking you'd want to discuss them....

[Straylight]

I think you've just done a bit of vacuous ranting....

No, I haven't. You're basically asking me to explain the differences between covenantalism and dispensationalism -- And all I can respond to that is "Huh? Shouldn't it be obvious?"

You're acting as if there's no difference or something, or no ground on which I should disagree so extremely with dispensational theology -- Like it's some big mystery. From my point of view, it is you that has done the "ranting".

If you want my explanation in the most succinct and elementary manner as possible, then it is this: I do not believe that there are "two peoples of God". No matter what age and time, there is only "one" people of God -- The people of God's covenants. And the only people of God now are those involved or will be involved in the covenant of Christ. Jew or Gentile. God makes deals with human beings through covenants. Not "dispensations".

Seriously man. It's a simple point. The only reason why you're carrying on about it is because I condemned dispensationalism so harshly -- Not the "Why", but the "What".

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

No, I haven't. You're basically asking me to explain the differences between covenantalism and dispensationalism -- And all I can respond to that is "Why..? Shouldn't it be obvious?"

No. I already know the difference. I asked you something else---very clearly---and you've yetto respond.


You're acting as if there's no difference or something, or no ground on which I should differ so extremely with dispensational theology -- Like it's some big mystery. From my point of view, it is you that has done the "ranting".

No again. I know there's a difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. I never asked you to explain the difference. I asked you something else---something very specific about the assertions you made concerning the "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "certain brands of futurism." And you began your remarks with an extremely sour and condemnatory attitude---which I think can be accurately described as a "rant."


If you want my explanation in the most succinct and elementary manner as possible, then it is this: I do not believe that there "two people of God's". The only people of God now are those involved or will be involved in the covenant of Christ. Jew or Gentile. God makes deals with human beings through covenants. Not "dispensations".

As Bill, a dispensationalist himself, said earlier, you don't appear to have a handle on this. Dispensationalists don't deny the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the Church, nor does the allowance for dispensations---economies of God, his revelation, and human responsibilitiy toward revelation as it unfolds, exclude covenant relationships. The two simply aren't mutually exclusive categories. But the question of how these concepts operate theoretically within one's systematics remains a matter of ongoing debate. Covenant theologians speak of dispensations, and dispensationalists acknowledge covenant relationships. The point of contention is how these ideas become the driving concepts within these respective systematic theologies.

I've never heard a dispensationalist "disregard the covenant of Christ." Bill, an avowed dispensationalist denies this charge, and you have failed to answer his rebuttal. I simply asked a couple of questions. Seeing that you began with such strident condemnation, I wouldn't have expected you to be so allergic to discussion---that's all....

[Hitch]

It seems srtaylight had something else in mind---an alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism as well as "other (unspecified) brands of futurism" which he said "disregards the Covenant of Christ." He also intimated that his concern was not really eschatological in nature. My initial question to him concerned these allegations (and others), which were presented in rather severe, condemnatory lanuage.

Bill began to engage him, but then he withdrew.

What you, hitch, call the "imaginary nature of the dispensations" is another matter. But I'd say that God does in fact dispense his revelation in a way that has historically entailed human stewardship, and that human responsibility toward what God has revealed has changed throughout Biblical history. As revelation unfolded, human responsibility toward new truth which God revealed progressed accordingly. And though there are, and have been, all kinds of debates surrounding covenant and dispensation, law and gospel, antinomianism, neonomianism, and theonomy, I don't suppose we'll be able to know exactly what straylight meant---unless he decides to tell us.

I just wanted to know what straylight meant by this alleged "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of futurism," as well as what these "other brands of futurism" were....I have a list of the seven Dispensations of which we all know it is impossible to understand the Scriptures without. (sic) What no one has ever been able to produce is an afirmation of these specifics attributed to any Biblical book or writer. The inevitable result is the 'kinda sorta' generalizations a s we see in your response, which fairly define DF in the new century. An addition trouble ,for Df ,is that generalizations themselves are contrary to the very idea of dispensations. where formerly the dispensations were taught to be absolute and the primary source for 'proof's as death nears they lose their outlines and blurrr into meaninglessness.

Take care

Hitch

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I have a list of the seven Dispensations of which we all know it is impossible to understand the Scriptures without. (sic) What no one has ever been able to produce is an afirmation of these specifics attributed to any Biblical book or writer. The inevitable result is the 'kinda sorta' generalizations a s we see in your response, which fairly define DF in the new century. An addition trouble ,for Df ,is that generalizations themselves are contrary to the very idea of dispensations. where formerly the dispensations were taught to be absolute and the primary source for 'proof's as death nears they lose their outlines and blurrr into meaninglessness.

Take care

Hitch

Sigh---again hitch, this is all beside the point. I'm not trying to defend dispensationalism or to debate eschatology here. Straylight said that his concern wasn't eschatology primarily; he asserted that there was a "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of furturism" which "disregarded the covenant of Christ" and was thus worthy of condemnation. I JUST WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS---if he can tell me.

I've said as much about TEN TIMES NOW. :sigh: :offtopic: :bonk: :argh:

[Straylight]

Sigh---again hitch, this is all beside the point. I'm not trying to defend dispensationalism or to debate eschatology here. Straylight said that his concern wasn't eschatology primarily; he asserted that there was a "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of furturism" which "disregarded the covenant of Christ" and was thus worthy of condemnation. I JUST WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS---if he can tell me.

Now I see your confusion. I think.

You keep equating dispensationalism with eschatology -- When it's much more broad than that. It's this broadness of vision, this "theological framework", this all encompassing hermeneutical approach, that I disagree with so vehemently. It's not just it's view on the end times. It's view on the end times is a smaller part of it's wider view on dispensations. It's this view of dispensation that serves as the complete opposite of the view of covenants.

[Hitch]

Sigh---again hitch, this is all beside the point. I'm not trying to defend dispensationalism or to debate eschatology here. Straylight said that his concern wasn't eschatology primarily; he asserted that there was a "theological framework" common to dispensationalism and "other brands of furturism" which "disregarded the covenant of Christ" and was thus worthy of condemnation. I JUST WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS---if he can tell me.

I've said as much about TEN TIMES NOW. :sigh: :offtopic: :bonk: :argh:

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome?

Is this an accurate quote?

My answer is that the dispensations, the very namesake of this system, are imaginary and do not exist in reality.

That is a direct and precise answer to your question quoted above.

sigh on

H

[Hitch]

Now I see your confusion. I think.

You keep equating dispensationalism with eschatology -- When it's much more broad than that. It's this broadness of vision, this "theological framework", this all encompassing hermeneutical approach, that I disagree with so vehemently. It's not just it's view on the end times. It's view on the end times is a smaller part of it's wider view on dispensations. It's this view of dispensation that serves as the complete opposite of the view of covenants.The most obvious difference being the the Covenants are real .

[Geek Eclectic]

I'm probably getting in over my head here, but I'll see if I can put forth what I see as a fairly simple answer to the problems with dispensationalism. This answer, of course, requires that I understand both positions(which I fully admit I may not). If I get something wrong, please be gentle. :blush:

Personally, I think it stems from the interpretation of the word Israel. The Preterist will see Israel as being the church, which may or may not also be a nation at the same time(currently it is not). DDW's site has a great little article concerning the "true Israel" that I think is worth reading, if only to understand the Preterist viewpoint on the matter.

Dispensationalists seem to view Israel, on the other hand, as a nation of Abraham's descendents who do not necessarily belong to the church(though some may). As if the current Jewish population still falls under the Old Covenant, and has some dispensation of grace because of it.

To the Preterist, since the covenants, as Paul pointed out, are fulfilled in Jesus Himself, those who reject the Messiah are also rejecting the covenants. There is therefore no special dispensation to the people we call Jews today under the Old Covenant because they have rejected the One in Whom that covenant(and all covenants of God) is fulfilled.

That's my understanding of the situation, and why I think that Preterists(among other non-dispensationalists) might think dispensationalism is wrong.

[Hitch]

I'm probably getting in over my head here, but I'll see if I can put forth what I see as a fairly simple answer to the problems with dispensationalism. This answer, of course, requires that I understand both positions(which I fully admit I may not). If I get something wrong, please be gentle. :blush:

Personally, I think it stems from the interpretation of the word Israel. The Preterist will see Israel as being the church, which may or may not also be a nation at the same time(currently it is not). DDW's site has a great little article concerning the "true Israel" that I think is worth reading, if only to understand the Preterist viewpoint on the matter.

Dispensationalists seem to view Israel, on the other hand, as a nation of Abraham's descendents who do not necessarily belong to the church(though some may). As if the current Jewish population still falls under the Old Covenant, and has some dispensation of grace because of it.

To the Preterist, since the covenants, as Paul pointed out, are fulfilled in Jesus Himself, those who reject the Messiah are also rejecting the covenants. There is therefore no special dispensation to the people we call Jews today under the Old Covenant because they have rejected the One in Whom that covenant(and all covenants of God) is fulfilled.

That's my understanding of the situation, and why I think that Preterists(among other non-dispensationalists) might think dispensationalism is wrong.Just fine for a thumbnail version.

H

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Now I see your confusion. I think.

You keep equating dispensationalism with eschatology -- When it's much more broad than that. It's this broadness of vision, this "theological framework", this all encompassing hermeneutical approach, that I disagree with so vehemently. It's not just it's view on the end times. It's view on the end times is a smaller part of it's wider view on dispensations. It's this view of dispensation that serves as the complete opposite of the view of covenants.

Actually, I'm not equating dispensationalism with eschatology at all---rather I want to focus upon the idea of a dispensation as projected within an entire theological framework. I thought you were interested in the same thing---hence my original questions.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Why? What is it precisely about a dispensational "theological framework" that you find troublesome?

Is this an accurate quote?

Read what I said within the overall context of the discussion. Again, I want to know precisely what Straylight meant by a "theological framework" that somehow underlies both dispensationalism and "certain brands of futurism." (I also want to know about these presumably non-dispensational brands of futurism---what they are, how they share a theological framework with dispensationalism, and how they "disregard the covenant of Christ.)


My answer is that the dispensations, the very namesake of this system, are imaginary and do not exist in reality.

Your answer is beside the point, hitch. My question doesn't concern whether or not specific economies conceived by this or that dispensationalist are "real" or "imagined." My questions concerned Straylight's "theological framework," as I keep telling you. If you can't confine the discussion to this question, I'll ask you to keep off the thread.


That is a direct and precise answer to your question quoted above.

No. Your answer doesn't even acknowledge the nature of my question within its proper context.


sigh on

H

I hope to be done with "sighing" about your remarks---because I formally request that you stop making them here IF you can't refrain from taking random, off topic potshots.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Seriously man. It's a simple point. The only reason why you're carrying on about it is because I condemned dispensationalism so harshly -- Not the "Why", but the "What".

No---it really is the "Why...."

[Straylight]

Read what I said within the overall context of the discussion. Again, I want to know precisely what Straylight meant by a "theological framework" that somehow underlies both dispensationalism and "certain brands of futurism." (I also want to know about these presumably non-dispensational brands of futurism---what they are, how they share a theological framework with dispensationalism, and how they "disregard the covenant of Christ.)

Alright man. I'll try to explain one last time.

The common thread between Dispensationalism and certain kinds of futurism is that they all have a less than sovereign view of the covenant of grace through Christ.

In this respect, dispensationalism does it by saying that the current "dispensation" of "Pauline" Grace (Pauline being their words) is just a NT phenomenon meant for Gentiles, that salvation for Jews comes later in some "tribulation" period, and that the community that Jesus established is just a sidenote to the "earthly" kingdom and people of promise in some future Israeli state -- With Temple sacrifices to boot!

That's not a sovereign view of grace. That's a complete mockery of the gospel. A gospel meant for Jew or Gentile --- Now. A gospel with one sacrifice -- Christ.

As for some brands of futurism (this is excluding historic premills): Besides the doom and gloom "news reader" variety that create all kinds of faith testing scenarios for believers, I'm also condemning the thousands upon thousands of Michael Cadrys out there who believe that somehow my salvation entails that I believe in THEM TOO (Usually because they're one of the "two witnesses" in Revelation or somesuch. Sometimes it's more subtle than that though...And therefore, more dangerous.).

I'm just sick of it all, which is why I used the language that I did earlier. They are enemies of the gospel for the simple reason that they don't give complete and upmost authority to Christ and his work on the cross. The second thing in common is that they believe they are somehow reclaiming a lost faith, and the church has been in error for 2000 years. "A faith", that Jude says, "was once for all delivered to the saints".

[Hitch]

Alright man. I'll try to explain one last time.

The common thread between Dispensationalism and certain kinds of futurism is that they all have a less than sovereign view of the covenant of grace through Christ.

In this respect, dispensationalism does it by saying that the current "dispensation" of "Pauline" Grace (Pauline being their words) is just a NT phenomenon meant for Gentiles, that salvation for Jews comes later in some "tribulation" period, and that the community that Jesus established is just a sidenote to the "earthly" kingdom and people of promise in some future Israeli state -- With Temple sacrifices to boot!

That's not a sovereign view of grace. That's a complete mockery of the gospel. A gospel meant for Jew or Gentile --- Now. A gospel with one sacrifice -- Christ.

As for some brands of futurism (this is excluding historic premills): Besides the doom and gloom "news reader" variety that create all kinds of faith testing scenarios for believers, I'm also condemning the thousands upon thousands of Michael Cadrys out there who believe that somehow my salvation entails that I believe in THEM TOO (Usually because they're one of the "two witnesses" in Revelation or somesuch. Sometimes it's more subtle than that though...And therefore, more dangerous.).

I'm just sick of it all, which is why I used the language that I did earlier. They are enemies of the gospel for the simple reason that they don't give complete and upmost authority to Christ and his work on the cross. The second thing in common is that they believe they are somehow reclaiming a lost faith, and the church has been in error for 2000 years. "A faith", that Jude says, "was once for all delivered to the saints".

PERF!

H

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Alright man. I'll try to explain one last time.

Thanks.


The common thread between Dispensationalism and certain kinds of futurism is that they all have a less than sovereign view of the covenant of grace through Christ.

This is a rather generalized assertion---and it's really not sufficient to isolate a "theological framework" common to both dispensationalism and those other "brands of futurism" (whatever they are).


In this respect, dispensationalism does it...

Does what? What does dispensationalism do?


... by saying that the current "dispensation" of "Pauline" Grace (Pauline being their words) is just a NT phenomenon meant for Gentiles...

Dispensationalists generally say nothing of the kind.


...that salvation for Jews comes later in some "tribulation" period...

Dispensationalists affirm that the church includes BOTH Jews and Gentiles---that the dividing wall between them is gone with respect to the chruch.

As to a subsequent salvation for Israel, Paul himself speaks about this, as Bill already pointed out, in Romans 11.

The idea that this salvation for Israel is to occur in a 7-year tribulation period is an eschatological feature of dispensationalism, BUT this in itself substantiates nothing about your allegation that dispensationalists (and other undisclosed brands of futurism) possess some underlying "theological framework" which "disregards the covenant of Christ." You've yet to demonstrate this---or even describe it, for that matter. Could it be that you don't describe it because it doesn't in fact exist?


...and that the community that Jesus established is just a sidenote to the "earthly" kingdom and people of promise...

Again, this shows ignorance of what dispensationalists actually believe. The Church is no "sidenote" in dispensational thinking.


...in some future Israeli state -- With Temple sacrifices to boot!

Are you talking about the tribulation or the millennium here? What soteriological weight do you think dispensationalists attach to these temple sacrifices? Do you think these sacrifices deny Christ's sacrifice? I don't believe that dispensationalists would say so.

It would be helpful if some dispensationalists here would come and address this matter, speaking for themselves....


That's not a sovereign view of grace. That's a complete mockery of the gospel. A gospel meant for Jew or Gentile --- Now. A gospel with one sacrifice -- Christ.

I think you've misunderstood what dispensationalists actually teach; they affirm a gospel for Jew and gentile---"Now." Many of them tend to be amyraldians. I don't think they tend to attach soteriological weight to the revived temple sacrifices such that Christ's sacrifice becomes undermined, either. (Again, it would be helpful if a few dispensationalists would chime in here.) Is this your primary case against dispensationalism? It almost seems as if you don't regard them as brothers in Christ....


As for some brands of futurism (this is excluding historic premills): Besides the doom and gloom "news reader" variety that create all kinds of faith testing scenarios for believers, I'm also condemning the thousands upon thousands of Michael Cadrys out there who believe that somehow my salvation entails that I believe in THEM TOO (Usually because they're one of the "two witnesses" in Revelation or somesuch. Sometimes it's more subtle than that though...And therefore, more dangerous.).

This broad characterization doesn't present anything close to a "theological framework." It just seems like you're attempting some vague guilt-by-association tactic which lumps dispensationalism in which various components of the lunatic fringe.

Again, what are the features of this alleged "theological framework" common to both dispensationalism and "certain brands of futurism?" (Bear in mind that craziness and guilt-by-association are not sufficient to answer the question.)


I'm just sick of it all, which is why I used the language that I did earlier.

Neither the language you used earlier, nor the language you're using now, nor your subjective feeling of "sickness" are enough to make your case. You've got more work to do, IMHO. It may be that you've hinted at some possible theological inconsistencies within dispensationalism, but even that remains to be seen.


They are enemies of the gospel for the simple reason that they don't give complete and upmost authority to Christ and his work on the cross.

I think they do "give complete authority to Christ and his work on the cross," soteriologically speaking. If their eschatology possesses some inconsistancies inthat regard, maybe you can help divulge what they are. (Again, I'm hoping for some dispensational input from others on this question.)

As it is, you're talking as if dispensationalists aren't Christians, and I think you're misguided to do so....


The second thing in common is that they believe they are somehow reclaiming a lost faith, and the church has been in error for 2000 years. "A faith", that Jude says, "was once for all delivered to the saints".

And so did all the heirs of the Protestant Reformation, on some level....

[Straylight]

And so did all the heirs of the Protestant Reformation, on some level....

What is that to me? I'm not the Protestant you think I am.


Secondly, you're starting to put words in my mouth, saying that I don't consider dispensationalists to be brothers in Christ -- When I explicitly stated earlier that I do believe many of them are fine -- They're just not thinking their whole system through.

It's dispensationalism that I have problems with. Not dispensationalists. At least, not the average believer in it.

Again, this shows ignorance of what dispensationalists actually believe. The Church is no "sidenote" in dispensational thinking.

Don't call me ignorant. I know exactly what dispensationalism teaches in this regard. They hold that Jesus originally planned to be the political Messiah of Israel, AND that since they rejected him at first, he switched to a "Plan B" : The Church (READ: Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, pp. 40-41, and Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word). It also teaches that Gentiles will be on the "lowest level" in Christ's kingdom (John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 136. ; Herman Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialsim).

Anyways...Welcome to the ignore list. You keep telling me to explain the theological implications of disp., then I do, then you just keep asking me to explain again and again and again. I can't come to any conclusion except that you're out to troll me. Your perogative, I guess, but I don't have the patience for it. Goodbye.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

What is that to me? I'm not the Protestant you think I am.


If it weren't anything to you, then why make the objection in the first place? And, whatever your background (you said you were Pentecostal), and whatever your current beliefs, whether Protestant or not, I can assure you I have no animosity toward you.


Secondly, you're starting to put words in my mouth, saying that I don't consider dispensationalists to be brothers in Christ

Well, you used some rather condemnatory language and you called them "enemies of the gospel." I said that what you said sounded as if you didn't consider them brothers....


-- When I explicitly stated earlier that I do believe many of them are fine -- They're just not thinking their whole system through.

This sounds a lot better than your earlier charges that they "diregard the covenant of Christ," or that they believe a "mockery of the gospel," or that they are "enemies of the gospel," or that their theology was "wicked" and "fit for nothing except the fires of hell." (These are all your quotes!)

I must have missed where you stated that you believe that many dispensationalists are "fine," and that "they're just not thinking their system through." I reviewed the thread and still didn't see it, and it seems to me that this represents a softening of your stated position----which I applaud.


It's dispensationalism that I have problems with. Not dispensationalists. At least, not the average believer in it.

Okay. I only wanted to know more about what you thought given the former vehemence of your theological claims.


Don't call me ignorant. I know exactly what dispensationalism teaches in this regard.

Again, given your former statements, it wasn't clear that you did know....


They hold that Jesus originally planned to be the political Messiah of Israel, AND that since they rejected him at first, he switched to a "Plan B" : The Church (READ: Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, pp. 40-41, and Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word).

They also believe in the foreknowledge of God which belies the severity of your critique. And, while it's true that Scofield, Chafer, and Larkin (probably not in the same league as the former two) used "rejection" language as to how the Jews treated their Messiah, it's also true that most dispensationalists regard this as undeveloped and unguarded language, theologically speaking. Dispensationalists have come some distance since then---after Ryrie, for example. and the "Plan-B" sort of critique comes from Reformed polemics rather than from dispensationalism itself. I think it's true that dispensationalists have generally responded to criticism constructively and tightened their systematics.

But again, this represents dealing with "thinking through one's system"---not an outright "disregard for the covenant of Christ," as you had originally declared.


It also teaches that Gentiles will be on the "lowest level" in Christ's kingdom (John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 136. ; Herman Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialsim).

Probably best to set this up with a little context....


Anyways...Welcome to the ignore list.

I've never, as far as I know, been on anyone's list until now. I certainly didn't mean to offend you---though I did mean to take you to task a little....


You keep telling me to explain the theological implications of disp., then I do, then you just keep asking me to explain again and again and again.

I guess we have different notions of what such an explanation entails. Sorry to hound you.


I can't come to any conclusion except that you're out to troll me. Your perogative, I guess, but I don't have the patience for it. Goodbye.

I wasn't out to "troll" you at all. I just wanted to know about this "theological framework" of yours---and I wanted to see if the severity of your denunciation had merit, or, if it went too far. I still think you went too far. As for patience, it's been needed on both ends here. In any event, and for what it's worth, I'm sorry to have exhausted your patience....

[solafide]

The common thread between Dispensationalism and certain kinds of futurism is that they all have a less than sovereign view of the covenant of grace through Christ.


Stated in another way, a system of Bible prophecy interpretation that subscribes to a saving dispensation for Israel (whether defined as a people or a nation), that is not contingent upon all beneficiaries of this dispensation to have a true belief in the Covenent of Grace through Jesus Christ, is then allowing for a path of salvation that does not pass through the Cross. I don’t understand how a person could believe in covenant theology while holding to a dispensationalist view of Israel regarding Bible prophecy. To that extent, I think they are mutually exclusive belief systems. The Adamic, Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants of the Old Testament were once and for all believing Israel and for all grafted-in believing Gentiles, fulfilled in the Covenant of Grace through Christ on the Cross. As Christ said “It is finished”. Nothing can be added to or taken away from the complete victory achieved on the Cross. Thanks be to God!

Bill

[Harfelugan]

Stated in another way, a system of Bible prophecy interpretation that subscribes to a saving dispensation for Israel (whether defined as a people or a nation), that is not contingent upon all beneficiaries of this dispensation to have a true belief in the Covenent of Grace through Jesus Christ, is then allowing for a path of salvation that does not pass through the Cross. I don’t understand how a person could believe in covenant theology while holding to a dispensationalist view of Israel regarding Bible prophecy. To that extent, I think they are mutually exclusive belief systems. The Adamic, Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants of the Old Testament were once and for all believing Israel and for all grafted-in believing Gentiles, fulfilled in the Covenant of Grace through Christ on the Cross. As Christ said “It is finished”. Nothing can be added to or taken away from the complete victory achieved on the Cross. Thanks be to God!

Bill
I totaly agree with you that if anyone believes in a dispensational viewpoint as described above that they would be in error , grave error at that . However no dispy here is claiming that this is an actual viewpoint that current dispy's are proclaiming . It appears to be a carryover from a limited ,or large group of men who wrote in err some time ago that seems to be rehashed in every argument against dispy's as if they have to believe this way because of what these men wrote and cannot move beyond it or correct their beliefs . I don't see this view presented in current dispy works , even the laughable ones as every form of eschatology has them , dont try to deny it or I'll go all sorts of "JoLanda on ya" . I will present as my defense Zechariah chapters 8-14 which describe the restoration of Isreal through the atoning work of the Messiah . This is a defense in favor of dispy's stance on the Jews being restored through the covenant of atonement only and not another covenant or dispensation of grace as has been accused . This is what we teach , this is what we learn from other dispies at our secret meetings in the holy dispie text . As for a restored nation of Isreal with a functional temple you should know that no sane dispie actually believes that God would honor the old covenant with them as it has been abolished for the new , nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination . When studying other forms of eschatology its best to go to works witten by diverse authors within that form instead of detractions written by people within your own camp . That is how I learned to discern between full and partial preterist as an example , where as if I had stayed within the detraction works presented within my own camp you might be as confused by my statements of the preterist view as I am by your statements on all dispies believe this way or that . Maurou's artical was good , and may have been more acurate in the 1920's but hasn't everyones eschatology evolved since then ? Or at least their clarifications of their beliefs ? If any dispie out there dissagrees with me I would like to Know . Perhaps I need a new label , like partial-dispie or something . May I'll lose my dispie membership over this but at least I'll know that they believe as some have claimed .

[Hitch]

nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination .






If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built?

The notion of thousands ,if not millions of less than sane DFs lurking in Christian Book stores isnt really too far off the mark, but Im surprized to see it presented this way. I wonder would the famous literalist Ryrie be found in your sane or not sane collumn? Walvoord? Perntecost? McGee? (They have in common time spent at a large institution in Texas...)

What about the entire editing staff of the New Scofield Reference Bible? Do you think there are all crazy?




My guess is that you are iether vastly ignorant or attempting a whitewash.


Take care

H

[solafide]

I will present as my defense Zechariah chapters 8-14 which describe the restoration of Isreal through the atoning work of the Messiah . This is a defense in favor of dispy's stance on the Jews being restored through the covenant of atonement only and not another covenant or dispensation of grace as has been accused . This is what we teach , this is what we learn from other dispies at our secret meetings in the holy dispie text.

It sounds like you are applying the same standard of salvation to both the believing remnant of Israel and believing Gentiles, together being co-benificiaries of the Covenant of Grace through Christ. If I am reading you correctly, I agree with you as well. But, I'm not seeing any special provision or dispansation being extended to Israel??

Bill

[Straylight]

If it weren't anything to you, then why make the objection in the first place? And, whatever your background (you said you were Pentecostal), and whatever your current beliefs, whether Protestant or not, I can assure you I have no animosity toward you.

OK, bud, if there's no animosity, then I believe you. I don't want to be anything but friendly to you either (I won't keep you on /ignore), but it was hard diciphering why you kept asking me the same questions over again -- When I thought I answered them to begin with. Perhaps there's a communication problem between you and I, so maybe you should direct your questions towards Hitch or Solafide? They seem to be able to explain the theological/hermenuetical distinctions better than I.

Another thing: I am definitely not a Pentacostal. Where I did say that? :smile:

[EDIT]

LOL :lol:

Well, now I know why you thought that I was a "Pentecostal".

In this thread (the one that sparked off this one (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1342760&postcount=49)), I kicked off my first attack on dispyism with condemning langauge, BUT then laced it with the JOKE: "Excuse the damning language, but that's the Pentecostal in me talking." It was performance art, if you will.

Apparantly, the joke wasn't understood, or even funny.

Though I am being sincere in my opposition, I felt it necessary to use the same doom and gloom language that dispy preachers use to mark my own opposition towards their teachings. Perhaps my tactic was the wrong one.

Anyways, I'm not a Pentecostal. If anything, I'm a mainliner, a New Perspectivist, and someone who harbors a secret symphathy with Eastern Orthodoxy (Convoluted, yes....But that's the best that I can describe it..).




In closing, I should mention that I find more common ground with progressive dispy's a little more than I do with traditional dispensationalism. Though the progressives aren't exactly covenantal either, they seem to be moving in a better direction with their doctrine. It's a mistake if I put them all under the same category, I think.

OK, I'm done now. Peace.

[Harfelugan]

nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination . I would like to clarify that as atoning sacrafices and elaborate below .
If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built?[/QUOTE] In my post I requested to defend only the criticism of the Jews recieving a different , new , or extended covenant outside or beyond the atonment of Christ, no matter what dispensation that is being discussed . However in discussing the sanity of the men you listed I will have to elaborate only slightly on the temple subject .

The notion of thousands ,if not millions of less than sane DFs lurking in Christian Book stores isnt really too far off the mark, but Im surprized to see it presented this way. I wonder would the famous literalist Ryrie be found in your sane or not sane collumn? Walvoord? Perntecost? McGee? (They have in common time spent at a large institution in Texas...)

What about the entire editing staff of the New Scofield Reference Bible? Do you think there are all crazy?
Lets go all the way back to the Old Scofield Reference Bible (copyright renewed 1945) pg. 890 footnote#1 from Ezk.43:19 1-Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross. In neither case have the animal sacrifices power to put away sin (Heb. 10:4; Rom. 3:25) That takes Scofield and his fellow editors off the list of the insane as they allow only for the atonement of Christ .

Lets take a look at some of the newer kids who are on the fringe . Henry M. Morris , in his book "The Revelation Record" which has forwards written by everyones favorite , Tim LaHaye , and the always impeccable Rev. Jerry Falwell . pg.416 --In every disensation, salvation is offered only by the grace of God on the basis of the substitutionary death of Christ for sin. Thus, the animal sacrificeswill be a memorial and reminder of the great saving workof Christ and will serve as an aid and evidence of faith. That takes the new weird guys off the insane list .
I've been looking through Walvoord's "The Revelation Of Jesus Christ" commentary trying to find similar statements to no avail . As he didnt even make mention of the temples of Ezk. or Zech. I couldnt speak to the reasoning of a former president of that large Texas institution in not making the statements there that some have claimed or a footnote explaining his viewpoints on the rebuilt temple sacrifices . But in my vastly ignorant opinion he didn't didn't discuss it because he assumed that every one knows that to exclaim another atonement than that in Christ or even adding an addendum to Christ's atonement is heretical in any dispensation.
My guess is that you are iether vastly ignorant or attempting a whitewash.


Take care

H However if you have any proof in the form of written statements by any of these men or similar authors they would still be on the insane list. Of course ,if you believe what you have claimed , I am sure that at least some of the bookstore lurkers are insane too. Because that is how insanity spreads.

[Hitch]

I would like to clarify that as atoning sacrafices and elaborate below .
In my post I requested to defend only the criticism of the Jews recieving a different , new , or extended covenant outside or beyond the atonment of Christ, no matter what dispensation that is being discussed . However in discussing the sanity of the men you listed I will have to elaborate only slightly on the temple subject .


Lets go all the way back to the Old Scofield Reference Bible (copyright renewed 1945) pg. 890 footnote#1 from Ezk.43:19 1-Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross. In neither case have the animal sacrifices power to put away sin (Heb. 10:4; Rom. 3:25) [/quote] Sorry aint no such critter as the 'Old Scofield Reference Bible' That takes Scofield and his fellow editors off the list of the insane as they allow only for the atonement of Christ .

Lets take a look at some of the newer kids who are on the fringe . Henry M. Morris , in his book "The Revelation Record" which has forwards written by everyones favorite , Tim LaHaye , and the always impeccable Rev. Jerry Falwell . pg.416 --In every disensation, salvation is offered only by the grace of God on the basis of the substitutionary death of Christ for sin. Thus, the animal sacrificeswill be a memorial and reminder of the great saving workof Christ and will serve as an aid and evidence of faith. That takes the new weird guys off the insane list .
I've been looking through Walvoord's "The Revelation Of Jesus Christ" commentary trying to find similar statements to no avail . As he didnt even make mention of the temples of Ezk. or Zech. I couldnt speak to the reasoning of a former president of that large Texas institution in not making the statements there that some have claimed or a footnote explaining his viewpoints on the rebuilt temple sacrifices . But in my vastly ignorant opinion he didn't didn't discuss it because he assumed that every one knows that to exclaim another atonement than that in Christ or even adding an addendum to Christ's atonement is heretical in any dispensation.
However if you have any proof in the form of written statements by any of these men or similar authors they would still be on the insane list.


If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built? You must be thinking of soemone else I didnt mention the sacrfices ... Maybe that was Dorothy...

Of course ,if you believe what you have claimed , I am sure that at least some of the bookstore lurkers are insane too. Because that is how insanity spreads.

Does proof from the Bible count?


If it does maybe you can show me from Ezzy's prophecy something about the 'memorial 'nature of the offerings in the Temple he speaks of. I find mostly 'sin offerings'. I cant find any 'memorial offerings'.


If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built? What internal evidence would you cite from the Prophet that speaks of this Temple as a 'memorial, temple rahter than a functioning center of bloody 'sin offerings'.?


Take care

Hitch

[Harfelugan]

Lets go all the way back to the Old Scofield Reference Bible (copyright renewed 1945) pg. 890 footnote#1 from Ezk.43:19 1-Doubtless these offerings will be memorial, looking back to the cross, as the offerings under the old covenant were anticipatory, looking forward to the cross. In neither case have the animal sacrifices power to put away sin (Heb. 10:4; Rom. 3:25) Sorry aint no such critter as the 'Old Scofield Reference Bible' That would be the one before the new version originally just called The Scofield Reference Bible .If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built? I think all dispies believe that the temple will be rebuilt , but the point I have been trying to make is that any such apostate trib. temple or millenium temple will not go outside of our current covenant atonement in Christ in that the trib. temple is not of God in the first place , but a jewish blasphemy . ---sorry just got called from work and have to leave I will try to finish tomorrow---

Does proof from the Bible count?


If it does maybe you can show me from Ezzy's prophecy something about the 'memorial 'nature of the offerings in the Temple he speaks of. I find mostly 'sin offerings'. I cant find any 'memorial offerings'.


If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built? What internal evidence would you cite from the Prophet that speaks of this Temple as a 'memorial, temple rahter than a functioning center of bloody 'sin offerings'.?


Take care

Hitch[/QUOTE]

[Hitch]

That would be the one before the new version originally just called The Scofield Reference Bible . I think all dispies believe that the temple will be rebuilt , but the point I have been trying to make is that any such apostate trib. temple or millenium temple will not go outside of our current covenant atonement in Christ in that the trib. temple is not of God in the first place , but a jewish blasphemy . ---sorry just got called from work and have to leave I will try to finish tomorrow---

Does proof from the Bible count?


If it does maybe you can show me from Ezzy's prophecy something about the 'memorial 'nature of the offerings in the Temple he speaks of. I find mostly 'sin offerings'. I cant find any 'memorial offerings'.


If what you posted is true doest it naturally follow that no sane DF expects the Temple as described in Ezzy to be built? What internal evidence would you cite from the Prophet that speaks of this Temple as a 'memorial, temple rahter than a functioning center of bloody 'sin offerings'.?


Take care

Hitch[/QUOTE]Roger that...

Sorry.

[Harfelugan]

That would be the one before the new version originally just called The Scofield Reference Bible . I think all dispies believe that the temple will be rebuilt , but the point I have been trying to make is that any such apostate trib. temple or millenium temple will not go outside of our current covenant atonement in Christ in that the trib. temple is not of God in the first place , but a jewish blasphemy . ---sorry just got called from work and have to leave I will try to finish tomorrow---
The millenium temple that will be built during the physical reign of Christ will operate within the covenant of Christ's atonement with a restored to Christ Jewish priesthood
Does proof from the Bible count?
If it does maybe you can show me from Ezzy's prophecy something about the 'memorial 'nature of the offerings in the Temple he speaks of. I find mostly 'sin offerings'. I cant find any 'memorial offerings'.
This will be long and dry but I'll try by bouncing back and forth from Ezekiel to Hebrews . Real temple, real sacrifices, and real priests, Mosiac in nature, though omissions and modifications are there.- (Eze.37:15-28)-All the covenants given to Isreal fulfilled at their restoration--(Eze. 40-48)-Presents only the Jewish view of millennial worship and doesn't deny that other worship forms will not co-exist.--
--Temple worship is the normal concept in an O.T. perspective--It goes to follow that a temple is necessary if sacrifices are to be offered-- (Eze.43;1-12)-The temple will house a throne for God among his people, all of them.--(Eze. 42:14-20)-The temple reflects God's holiness by the nature of dividing walls, courts, and divisions within it.---There seems to be no scriptural concept that forbids a christian from worshipping in a temple built to God.--Major omissions in Ezes.temple are the absence of a Day of Atonement, an ark of the covenant, the Feast of Weeks (or Pentecost), a high priest,and a full ministering Levitical priesthood, which suggests that the work of propitiation has already been fulfilled.--Neither Solomon's nor Herod's temple sacrafices and offerings were effacious to deliver from sins but were picture lessons and types of the Messiahs work and were observed in much the same way as a believer today confesses sin in (1John 1:9) in that the confession itself doesn't forgive, like the sacrafice didn't forgive, but the finished work of Christ that provides forgiveness.--The millenial sacrafices are memorials of Christ's work as the Mosiac sacrifices were types of the work He would do. neither is efficacious.-- Lets roll it over to Hebrews 7-10--I'll let you read through it to develope your own opinion as mine is that this is the evidence you asked for that can clear up the fear of stepping outside the covenant of atonment through a sin sacrifice in a millenium temple. Chapter 10:1-3 wraps it up as a rememberance of sins and then goes on to say there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. In the context of the remaining verses of chapter 10 we see that there is no longer a need for picture lessons and reminders but it does not declare that they cannot be observed. -- Our observance at the communion table is enough evidence to argue in favor of a memorial view as it is not a substitute for christ's death nor does it interfere with Christ's work, and it will also be carried over into the millenium.(Matt. 26:29)
What internal evidence would you cite from the Prophet that speaks of this Temple as a 'memorial, temple rahter than a functioning center of bloody 'sin offerings'.?
Take care
HitchThat would consist of the omissions that were left out of Ezes. temple that speak to the propitiation having already occurred, that by necessity had to be a part of the historical temples.

[Hitch]

The millenium temple that will be built during the physical reign of Christ will operate within the covenant of Christ's atonement with a restored to Christ Jewish priesthood

This will be long and dry but I'll try by bouncing back and forth from Ezekiel to Hebrews . Real temple, real sacrifices, and real priests, Mosiac in nature, though omissions and modifications are there.- (Eze.37:15-28)-All the covenants given to Isreal fulfilled at their restoration--(Eze. 40-48)-Presents only the Jewish view of millennial worship and doesn't deny that other worship forms will not co-exist.--
--Temple worship is the normal concept in an O.T. perspective--It goes to follow that a temple is necessary if sacrifices are to be offered-- (Eze.43;1-12)-The temple will house a throne for God among his people, all of them.--(Eze. 42:14-20)-The temple reflects God's holiness by the nature of dividing walls, courts, and divisions within it.---There seems to be no scriptural concept that forbids a christian from worshipping in a temple built to God.--Major omissions in Ezes.temple are the absence of a Day of Atonement, an ark of the covenant, the Feast of Weeks (or Pentecost), a high priest,and a full ministering Levitical priesthood, which suggests that the work of propitiation has already been fulfilled.--Neither Solomon's nor Herod's temple sacrafices and offerings were effacious to deliver from sins but were picture lessons and types of the Messiahs work and were observed in much the same way as a believer today confesses sin in Still Df teaches that before grace righteousness was gained by the keeping of the Law. Onre on the many fundamental internal conflicts of DF thinking. (1John 1:9) in that the confession itself doesn't forgive, like the sacrafice didn't forgive, but the finished work of Christ that provides forgiveness.--The millenial sacrafices are memorials of Christ's work as the Mosiac sacrifices were types of the work He would do. neither is efficacious.-- Lets roll it over to Hebrews 7-10--I'll let you read through it to develope your own opinion as mine is that this is the evidence you asked for that can clear up the fear of stepping outside the covenant of atonment through a sin sacrifice in a millenium temple. Chapter 10:1-3 wraps it up as a rememberance of sins and then goes on to say there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. In the context of the remaining verses of chapter 10 we see that there is no longer a need for picture lessons and reminders but it does not declare that they cannot be observed. -- Our observance at the communion table is enough evidence to argue in favor of a memorial view as it is not a substitute for christ's death nor does it interfere with Christ's work, and it will also be carried over into the millenium.(Matt. 26:29) nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination . LOL
That would consist of the omissions that were left out of Ezes. temple that speak to the propitiation having already occurred, that by necessity had to be a part of the historical temples.Well the Prophet forgot to leave out 'sin offerings'. The blood of bulls and goats. So much for you argument of silence. You said above such sacrfices would be an abomination. Well which is it Roger? They cant be unacceptible and acceptible .

How will the eucharist take place in the Millernnium when that is a jewish era and the church is above in the Heavenly City? Are you saying the church has a place in the Milllennial Kingdom?

Take care

Hitch

[Harfelugan]

Still Df teaches that before grace righteousness was gained by the keeping of the Law. Onre on the many fundamental internal conflicts of DF thinking. No one teaches that righteousness was gained by the keeping of the Law that I know of, from any perspective. Read what the New Testament has to say about the purpose and intent of the Law as a schoolmaster . Righteousness in every dispensation was recieved the same way, through faith. nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination . LOL Well the Prophet forgot to leave out 'sin offerings'. The blood of bulls and goats. So much for you argument of silence. You said above such sacrfices would be an abomination. Well which is it Roger? They cant be unacceptible and acceptible .An abomination if they were given with the intention of being effacious for removing sin, as that adds to the atonement of Christ. But I did say that no temple sacrifice ever, whether mosaic or millenium, is or will ever be effacious for the removal of sin, even if they are called a sin offering. The defense and verses I gave you explicitly suggested that the sacrafice didn't provide forgiveness or obligate God to forgive the person presenting the sacrifice. That even in theMosaic system the sin sacrafice was only a confession of sin and a symbolic type representitive of the future atoning work of Christ. The sacrafice was nothing but a work of obedience done in faith, just like the keeping of the Law was a work of obedience done in faith not producing righteousness in itself. The argument of silence in Ezes. temple is to show that the work of atonement is completed and recognized in the temple, also to show that this isn't one of the old temples, that in fact it is future and literal.
How will the eucharist take place in the Millernnium when that is a jewish era and the church is above in the Heavenly City? Are you saying the church has a place in the Milllennial Kingdom?
Take care
HitchWhich portion of The Church are you speaking of, the living survivors of the tribulation or those who have gone on before and exist in ressurected bodies, no longer living natural human lives. There is no Jewish era, only a restored to Christ, Jewish nation prominantly displayed within an existing Body of Christ,the church as we know it. Filling the earth as one people of God. With Christ ruling the earth, governing it from Jerusalem within His ressurected body fullfilling His end of the bargin in all of the covenants he made to mankind as a whole and Isreal as well. Bringing completion to all that He obligated Himself to. Men failed to fulfill their part but rest assured God will not fail in His. Not one dot or tittle shall fail. Thanks for the PM. This is the first time I have ever gone over these temple issues myself. Or ever tried to defend my dispie beliefs in depth. Because of this you'll be able to see that I'm developing my thoughts as I go, along with a bit of plagerising to keep me on track, for this I apoligize. But as long as you want to continue I will do my best to respond.

[Hitch]

No one teaches that righteousness was gained by the keeping of the Law that I know of, from any perspective. Read what the New Testament has to say about the purpose and intent of the Law as a schoolmaster . Righteousness in every dispensation was recieved the same way, through faith.

Well as the preacher at the First Baptist Church likes to say'Turn over in your bibles'... And we all know he means the 'Old Scofield Reference Bible' (sic) when he says that, specificly page 1115 note #2. You have already quoted from this work and you are aware that this was for many years a primary source for DF teaching and the primary source for what and where the various 'Dispensations' are to be Scripturally identified. I'm
pleased you refer to the NT this will be a great help, as in this case DF and NT teaching are at odds.


'As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation...'


Hmmmmm interesting conflict eh? I dont think the thousands of DTS grads who read and used this specific Bible can fairly be considered a small band, in reality they make op a half century of DFs finest.







An abomination if they were given with the intention of being effacious for removing sin, as that adds to the atonement of Christ. But I did say that no temple sacrifice ever, whether mosaic or millenium, is or will ever be effacious for the removal of sin, even if they are called a sin offering. The defense and verses I gave you explicitly suggested that the sacrafice didn't provide forgiveness or obligate God to forgive the person presenting the sacrifice.

Actually this is what you said;nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination . You later clarified,too bad you were on to something.
Not that it matters. The sacrfices were las legally binding on God as they were Israel. This is just an old and tired dodge that has long since proven a failure.


That even in theMosaic system the sin sacrafice was only a confession of sin and a symbolic type representitive of the future atoning work of Christ. The sacrafice was nothing but a work of obedience done in faith, just like the keeping of the Law was a work of obedience done in faith not producing righteousness in itself. The argument of silence in Ezes. temple is to show that the work of atonement is completed and recognized in the temple, also to show that this isn't one of the old temples, that in fact it is future and literal.



Fair waring; I will use the ammo you supply;



Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

So the purpose of the various offerings is 'to make reconciliation for the house of Israel' literaly.

Now a pillar of DF teaching is the famous 'literal whenever possible' method of interpretation. Above you cited this very Book and proclaimed the Temple described as both future and literal. Will you
now say that the stated purpose of this Temple and sacrfices is not to be taken literally?








Which portion of The Church are you speaking of, the living survivors of the tribulation or those who have gone on before and exist in ressurected bodies, no longer living natural human lives. There is no Jewish era, only a restored to Christ, Jewish nation prominantly displayed within an existing Body of Christ,the church as we know it.

I wont fill the page with text but pleasae explain how a 'future and literal'rendering of Ezzy 45 does not require a return to Judaism.


Filling the earth as one people of God. With Christ ruling the earth, governing it from Jerusalem within His ressurected body fullfilling His end of the bargin in all of the covenants he made to mankind as a whole and Isreal as well. Bringing completion to all that He obligated Himself to. Men failed to fulfill their part but rest assured God will not fail in His. Not one dot or tittle shall fail.

I'll take it then that you dont know that classical DF never taught Christ on earth with the resurrected saints during the Millennial kingdom. Yet another of the once most important conclusions of the 'Rightly Divided Word of Truth' bites the dust. Yes I have the quotes if you need them.


Thanks for the PM. This is the first time I have ever gone over these temple issues myself. Or ever tried to defend my dispie beliefs in depth. Because of this you'll be able to see that I'm developing my thoughts as I go, along with a bit of plagerising to keep me on track, for this I apoligize. But as long as you want to continue I will do my best to respond. If you continue to rely on the NT to develope your thoughts DF teaching will grow less and less relevent.

Take care

Hitch

[Harfelugan]

Well as the preacher at the First Baptist Church likes to say'Turn over in your bibles'... And we all know he means the 'Old Scofield Reference Bible' (sic) when he says that, specificly page 1115 note #2. You have already quoted from this work and you are aware that this was for many years a primary source for DF teaching and the primary source for what and where the various 'Dispensations' are to be Scripturally identified. I'm
pleased you refer to the NT this will be a great help, as in this case DF and NT teaching are at odds. I borrowed the Schofield from a friend who keeps 52 diff. Bible translations around for word study purposes, outside of that I know of no other Christian who owns one. I've never looked into one and wouldn't have if I hadn't been referred to by Hitch as as a dispie resource.


'As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation...' That sounds like what I said. ?????

Hmmmmm interesting conflict eh? I dont think the thousands of DTS grads who read and used this specific Bible can fairly be considered a small band, in reality they make op a half century of DFs finest. I do remember stating that those who implied that the sacrafices in the future temple added to the atonement of Christ would be insane and a small group but not that the DTS grads were a small group. That was something that you threw in as an implication. The sacrfices were las legally binding on God as they were Israel. This is just an old and tired dodge that has long since proven a failure. Actually I said that God was legally bound by the covenants He made and that He was not bound to honor the sacrifice or the one who presented it, by giving atonement.

Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.

So the purpose of the various offerings is 'to make reconciliation for the house of Israel' literaly.
Now a pillar of DF teaching is the famous 'literal whenever possible' method of interpretation. Above you cited this very Book and proclaimed the Temple described as both future and literal. Will you
now say that the stated purpose of this Temple and sacrfices is not to be taken literally?
I wont fill the page with text but pleasae explain how a 'future and literal'rendering of Ezzy 45 does not require a return to Judaism. Reconciliation by this sin sacrafice literally no, as a memorial picture type offered as you would a prayer for forgiveness, depending on the atoning work of Christ for any actual atonement, yes literally. The argument holds, that to be be honored by God these sacrifices cannot add beyond the atonement of Christ, therefore whatever they are called they will be memorial in nature. As to this word reconciliation, it can mean atonement, but can also be used in a legal sense to imply making a presentation in behalf of a guilty party. where as an outside mediator facillitates the case. There can and will be no returning to Judaism. Thats heresy.

I'll take it then that you dont know that classical DF never taught Christ on earth with the resurrected saints during the Millennial kingdom. Yet another of the once most important conclusions of the 'Rightly Divided Word of Truth' bites the dust. Yes I have the quotes if you need them.
If you continue to rely on the NT to develope your thoughts DF teaching will grow less and less relevent.
Take care
HitchI never knew that they did, and if you say so, I can accept it on your word alone. I will also be the first one to stand up and say that they were wrong, and can accept that they were wrong on several other similar issues. This issue isnt like the westminister confession, eschatology is fluid and developes over time. Dispensationism of today is diversified into as many catigories as every other form of eschatology. With that said, knowing that I dont have to espouse the exact same words as Mr Schofield and the others the NT references do provide relevancy and you may be trying to fight windmills with a lance thinking they are the great dispie dragons of old. Move on. Or provide me with a different lable like I requested in one of my earliest posts.

[Hitch]

Quote: Originally posted by Hitch

Well as the preacher at the First Baptist Church likes to say'Turn over in your bibles'... And we all know he means the 'Old Scofield Reference Bible' (sic) when he says that, specificly page 1115 note #2. You have already quoted from this work and you are aware that this was for many years a primary source for DF teaching and the primary source for what and where the various 'Dispensations' are to be Scripturally identified. I'm
pleased you refer to the NT this will be a great help, as in this case DF and NT teaching are at odds.
I borrowed the Schofield from a friend who keeps 52 diff. Bible translations around for word study purposes, outside of that I know of no other Christian who owns one. I've never looked into one and wouldn't have if I hadn't been referred to by Hitch as as a dispie resource.

[/quote]

Interesting, your facts and your implications are uintruthful. I handt yet mentioned the SRB and when I did mention the NSRB it was in the form of a question, repeated below;What about the entire editing staff of the New Scofield Reference Bible? Do you think there are all crazy? It was asumed that you were aware of Walvoord's contributiuon to that project. None of whioch matters because the quote from the notes is still the same and no it doesnt sound anything at all like what you said.



Quote: Originally posted by Hitch

'As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation...'


That sounds like what I said. ?????


Really? Lets take a look;

Lets take a look at some of the newer kids who are on the fringe . Henry M. Morris , in his book "The Revelation Record" which has forwards written by everyones favorite , Tim LaHaye , and the always impeccable Rev. Jerry Falwell . pg.416 --In every disensation, salvation is offered only by the grace of God on the basis of the substitutionary death of Christ for sin


'As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation...'


Im surprized you didnt get the point. The quote above is speaking of the change from Law to Grace and when Cy says 'no longer legal obdience' it means that this same thing, 'legal obdience ' was the condition in the previous 'dispensation. '

Are you going to tell me that is what you said?

[Hitch]

Reconciliation by this sin sacrafice literally no, as a memorial picture type offered as you would a prayer for forgiveness, depending on the atoning work of Christ for any actual atonement, yes literally. The argument holds, that to be be honored by God these sacrifices cannot add beyond the atonement of Christ, therefore whatever they are called they will be memorial in nature. As to this word reconciliation, it can mean atonement, but can also be used in a legal sense to imply making a presentation in behalf of a guilty party. where as an outside mediator facillitates the case. There can and will be no returning to Judaism. Thats heresy. LOL OK well sacrfice animals,and have the feasts, and the priesthoood and Temple services and redivide the Land according to the Law and we'll call it abujumbwah which is esperanto for duck, as in if it looks like...

It is also DF teaching as per Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord and Pentecost. For now that is beside the point. I need to know how using grammatical historical, literal when ever possible or any combination of these how you are able to honestly say the very same sacrfices ,which you claim to be literal, are not for the purpose stated in the very same verse. What method and/or standard is employed here?



17And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.




18Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary:

19And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.

20And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.

21In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

22And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.

23And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering.

Ok Roger you're on. Where in Ezzy do oyou find anything that allows the Temple and sacrfices to be literalized and also supports the supposed 'memorial nature' of the same. I cant see it here. This ,your espoused Millennial Temple has a very Hebrew cast.

[Hitch]

I never knew that they did, and if you say so, I can accept it on your word alone. I will also be the first one to stand up and say that they were wrong, and can accept that they were wrong on several other similar issues. This issue isnt like the westminister confession, eschatology is fluid and developes over time. Dispensationism of today is diversified into as many catigories as every other form of eschatology.[/quote] You saound as though at some point in the distnat past DF thinking formed some kind of monolith. heh heh, not quite. [quote] With that said, knowing that I dont have to espouse the exact same words as Mr Schofield and the others the NT references do provide relevancy and you may be trying to fight windmills with a lance thinking they are the great dispie dragons of old. Move on. Or provide me with a different lable like I requested in one of my earliest posts. You call yourself 'dispie' , dont blame me.

'It should be noted that this heavenly Jerusalem is not the sphere of the living saved who go into the millennium,for they will look to thne rebuilt earthly Jerusalem as their capital city,but rather the dwelling placed of the resurrected saints during the millennium.' So says Dwight on page 57 Truth For Today 1963 a complilation of the first 30 years of DTS' administration of Biblioteca Sacra



Ol Doc Walvoord was pretty well along in years in 1990 whan he wrote'

'...some believe that the New Jerusalem during the Millennium will actually be the home of all the resurrected saints as a satellite city ,and they will be able to commute;... ' Im not kidding that is from page 195, What We Believe LOL



BTW the mormonesque denial and disregard for past 'truth's ' doesnt help. Niether does it alter the old teaching and the concepts used to arrive at the stilll sahed conclusions. All too often the ancient pillars rot and crumble before the average ediface goer realizes whats happening. A good clue though is sudden alterations on standard dogma. When this starts happening the brain has ceased function ,the body will soon follow in death. In this case it came when Walvoord, restarted 'God's Clock of Prophecy'.

Take care

Hitch

[Harfelugan]

Post #36 What about the entire editing staff of the New Scofield Reference Bible? That was part of your first response to me in this thread. It was a question, but one which implied that the book was a potential resource that I should look into. No it really doesn't matter as the qoute was still used from that source. However the flippant use of the word untruthful was a little disheartening. If I was untruthful, it was not intentional and I apologize. In reading through your last three posts I have become very disorientated with where you are going, what you are asking, or what you are speaking contextually. In otherwards I dont know how to respond in a constructive way that can be of any help without misconstrueing this discussion any further than it is already. If you choose to continue please keep the questions concise, one subject point at a time, and elaborate context in areas where we find ourselves using the same words with different meanings. My apology as well for my time delay in responding, you deserve better, but it cant be helped.

[Hitch]

That was part of your first response to me in this thread. It was a question, but one which implied that the book was a potential resource that I should look into. No it really doesn't matter as the qoute was still used from that source. However the flippant use of the word untruthful was a little disheartening. If I was untruthful, it was not intentional and I apologize. In reading through your last three posts I have become very disorientated with where you are going, what you are asking, or what you are speaking contextually. In otherwards I dont know how to respond in a constructive way that can be of any help without misconstrueing this discussion any further than it is already. If you choose to continue please keep the questions concise, one subject point at a time, and elaborate context in areas where we find ourselves using the same words with different meanings. My apology as well for my time delay in responding, you deserve better, but it cant be helped. I have repeately asked for internal evidence supporting the supposed 'memorial nature' of the sin offerings as per Ezzy. You have posted that the Temple and sacrfices are literal and future and 'memorial ' in nature.. You are yet to produce anything from the Book in support of the 'memorial nature' you require. You have parsed the passage quoted to suit your needs saying that 'as above, the Temple and sacrfices must be literal and future but that the stated reason included in the passage is not to be taken literally, and you have do so while offering no internal support.

Now I said the same thing here four or five times I cant make it more clear.


Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.



I also asked you how a literal rendering of this chapter alone could support any thing other than a return to judaism.

So thats two basic questions;

1 .
What is your standard to render the bold below literally and the underlined not literally?


Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.




Reconciliation by this sin sacrafice literally no, as a memorial picture type offered as you would a prayer for forgiveness, depending on the atoning work of Christ for any actual atonement, yes literally.

So you know that when the Prophet write that the various offering are to make reconcilliation for the house of Israel you know he didnt mean this. He did mean to really kill the animals and sprinkle the blood etc but in all this literal bloody mess when he plainly states the reason for doing so,,, he was What? You claim to know so now is the time to explain.


2.

How do you 'literalize' most specifics in this chapter and maintain this does not require a return to judaism?


Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

That was part of your first response to me in this thread. It was a question, but one which implied that the book was a potential resource that I should look into. No it really doesn't matter as the qoute was still used from that source. However the flippant use of the word untruthful was a little disheartening. If I was untruthful, it was not intentional and I apologize. In reading through your last three posts I have become very disorientated with where you are going, what you are asking, or what you are speaking contextually. In otherwards I dont know how to respond in a constructive way that can be of any help without misconstrueing this discussion any further than it is already. If you choose to continue please keep the questions concise, one subject point at a time, and elaborate context in areas where we find ourselves using the same words with different meanings. My apology as well for my time delay in responding, you deserve better, but it cant be helped.


Well lets return some perspective;

You had posted;



nor will sacrifices be acceptable from the restored temple either , as they are now an abomination .


In contrast to the entire editing staff of the NSRB which held as a core doctrine the re-establishment of bloody sacrfices. If memory serves you posted this position would require insanity on part of the adherents.

Pointing the contradictions of DFs , whether old school or the modern variety,is a favorte sport.

[Hitch]

There may be a gap in your knowledge of DF teaching. You have back tracked, clairified and attempted to explain some important differences are nothing more than develpoments along the eschatological path. Im still not certain whether you're ignorant of attempting a whitewash.

Anyway I thought it would be sporting to compare your post in bold below with the teachings of Dallas Theological Seminary boxed;



There can and will be no returning to Judaism. Thats heresy


Let there be no doubt but that Dispensationalism does teach the re-establishment of Judaism following the Church age. Lewis Sperry Chafer, late President of Dallas Theological Seminary, says that after the Church age has run its course there is to be. 'the regathering of Israel and the restoration of Judaism' (Dispensationalism, p. 40). And Merrill F. Unger, also of Dallas Theological Seminary, says; 'At the second advent Christ will restore the Judaistic system with far greater glory and spirituality than it ever had in the Old Testament period until its complete dissipation with the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 A. D. The heart and center of re-established Judaism will be the millennial temple, in connection with which Judaism will enjoy its final state of development' ( Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-March, 1960).


You're right about the heresy.

Take care

H

[Harfelugan]

You have posted that the Temple and sacrfices are literal and future and 'memorial ' in nature.. You are yet to produce anything from the Book in support of the 'memorial nature' you require. You have parsed the passage quoted to suit your needs saying that 'as above, the Temple and sacrfices must be literal and future but that the stated reason included in the passage is not to be taken literally, and you have do so while offering no internal support.
Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
I also asked you how a literal rendering of this chapter alone could support any thing other than a return to judaism.
So thats two basic questions;
1 .
What is your standard to render the bold below literally and the underlined not literally?
Ezekiel 45:17
And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
Reconciliation by this sin sacrafice literally no, as a memorial picture type offered as you would a prayer for forgiveness, depending on the atoning work of Christ for any actual atonement, yes literally.
So you know that when the Prophet write that the various offering are to make reconcilliation for the house of Israel you know he didnt mean this. He did mean to really kill the animals and sprinkle the blood etc but in all this literal bloody mess when he plainly states the reason for doing so,,, he was What? You claim to know so now is the time to explain.
2. How do you 'literalize' most specifics in this chapter and maintain this does not require a return to judaism?
Take care
HitchYou will not find a reference in the book of Eze. that mentions memorial in any way, however I think the same could be stated for spiritualized as well. My whole premace on this subject rests on the atonment of Christ as the only sacrafice to ever be accepted for the reconciliation or atonement for sin. All other sacrafices past or future were not and will not be acceptable as atonement for sin as they are only faithful acts of obedience,done by those with saving faith, looking forward to the actual atonement, like the Mosiac sacrifices, or looking backward in memorial, like the Lord's table. Neither act of obedience saves or atones, only the finished work of the messiah can do that. Taking it from there I can say that if a blood sacrafice from a future temple, even if it is declared to be for sin, or for the recocilliation/atonement of the people can be only one of two things, memorial or heresy. There is an inherant danger in taking literal interpretation to far, as with every other idiology. It cant be taken so far as to lose the context of scripture dealing with atonement and where it comes from. I would like to restate here that the argument of silence in the omission of items found in the mosaic temples is enough evidence to at least imply that literal temple/memorial sacrafice is possible. Added to this, the disiples participation in the temple activities, including Paul and Timothy, without them bringing condemnation of the practices there brings it into a further possibility.

[Harfelugan]

There can and will be no returning to Judaism. Thats heresy


Let there be no doubt but that Dispensationalism does teach the re-establishment of Judaism following the Church age. Lewis Sperry Chafer, late President of Dallas Theological Seminary, says that after the Church age has run its course there is to be. 'the regathering of Israel and the restoration of Judaism' (Dispensationalism, p. 40). And Merrill F. Unger, also of Dallas Theological Seminary, says; 'At the second advent Christ will restore the Judaistic system with far greater glory and spirituality than it ever had in the Old Testament period until its complete dissipation with the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 A. D. The heart and center of re-established Judaism will be the millennial temple, in connection with which Judaism will enjoy its final state of development' ( Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-March, 1960).


You're right about the heresy.

Take care

HI've never read or heard this before. From my viewpoint this can be interpreted in several different ways. I'm sure you only see from your perspective that they are refering to Old Covenant Judaism, and to read it that way it would have every appearance of heresy. If you go at things with an attack strategy only, you will never fully understand that which you are attacking. For I think that you have thoroughly misjudged what is being implied in the statement above, and that until you can comprehend their intent, you are attacking the wind. I can also see why so many people have a problem with statments like these. For if I interpret it through the perspective of my last post, I have to reclarify my position on restoring Judaism to be heresy, to restoring Old Testament Judaism is heresy. From the perspective of my last post New Covenant Judaism with Christ as the only accepted atonement could be a possibility. "Dont bother, if you cant see it from another perspective you would'nt hear the other perspective if it was explained in detail to you."

[Hitch]

I've never read or heard this before. From my viewpoint this can be interpreted in several different ways. I'm sure you only see from your perspective that they are refering to Old Covenant Judaism, and to read it that way it would have every appearance of heresy. If you go at things with an attack strategy only, you will never fully understand that which you are attacking.

(Maybe the 100 years ,collectively, that my grandfather and father taught this gives me a good perspective, what do you think?) For I think that you have thoroughly misjudged what is being implied in the statement above, and that until you can comprehend their intent, you are attacking the wind. I can also see why so many people have a problem with statments like these. For if I interpret it through the perspective of my last post, I have to reclarify my position on restoring Judaism to be heresy, to restoring Old Testament Judaism is heresy. From the perspective of my last post New Covenant Judaism with Christ as the only accepted atonement could be a possibility. "Dont bother, if you cant see it from another perspective you would'nt hear the other perspective if it was explained in detail to you."LOL Pretending wont help Roger. And I can see you are both ignoant of the heritage of DF thinking and attempting a whitewash. Not a good combination.

[Hitch]

You will not find a reference in the book of Eze. that mentions memorial in any way, however I think the same could be stated for spiritualized as well.

Thats quite and addmision Roger. Ezzy cannot be interpreted in way to make the sacrfices 'memorial'. No NT teachers can be cited in support iether. That leaves only DF interpreters. This is why the circular was adopted. The scriptures cannot be properly interpreted outside DF hermanutics,, so says dispensatioslism.



My whole premace on this subject rests on the atonment of Christ as the only sacrafice to ever be accepted for the reconciliation or atonement for sin. All other sacrafices past or future were not and will not be acceptable as atonement for sin as they are only faithful acts of obedience,done by those with saving faith, looking forward to the actual atonement, like the Mosiac sacrifices, or looking backward in memorial, like the Lord's table. Neither act of obedience saves or atones, only the finished work of the messiah can do that.




Well Roger obviously this is an explanation you have heard and on the surface it seems reasonable enough so you adopteed it. Look a little closer. You are necessarily granting that the future sacrfices as per Ezzy have exactly the same function and power as all previous sacrfices. Basiclly a return to judaism. But I have to ask; Would an Israelite of 100 BC find right standing with God had he refused to sacrfice,citing your argument above?


Taking it from there I can say that if a blood sacrafice from a future temple, even if it is declared to be for sin, or for the recocilliation/atonement of the people can be only one of two things, memorial or heresy. There is an inherant danger in taking literal interpretation to far, as with every other idiology. (interesting comming from a self described DF) It cant be taken so far as to lose the context of scripture dealing with atonement and where it comes from. I would like to restate here that the argument of silence in the omission of items found in the mosaic temples is enough evidence to at least imply that literal temple/memorial sacrafice is possible. Added to this, the disiples participation in the temple activities, including Paul and Timothy, without them bringing condemnation of the practices there brings it into a further possibility. That was the same Temple Christ had entered. The same Temple He later destroyed. Untill that time the fact of its continued existance was more than enough for PaUL enter.



Somehow you have missed or more likely been mislead wrt the basics of DF teaching. Specificly that folliwing the close of the OT canon the next prophectic event was suppoed to be the restoration of the Davidic kingdom. Complete with Temple and sacrfices. (SRB p 998) The church is unforseen in the Prophets. The 'church age' is the 'Great Parenthesis' of history. According to DF thology God's purpose was and is to restore David to the throne of a theoracy based on and following the rituals and proceedures established by Moses. You can call it something besides judaism if you like but it wont help.

Your addmision that you havent even heard some of this before is not surprizing. You're 'gut' tells you its foolish and even heretical. Im telling you it cant stand in the light. I lay the blame with contemporary DF teachers. They have demonstrated ,again and again, a willingness to let folks like you defend some of these ideas after having witheld crucial information regarding the original DF teachings and intent. It is criminal. It is just what mormon leaders do to their 'missionaries'.

In the mean you're stuck trying to explain and defend what Chafer&Co. said as though they have been taken out of context.. . Good luck. A cursory glance into their teachings will satify any remeaing doubts.

Take care

H



Take care

Hitch

[Harfelugan]

Actually, I'm not required to prove anything more than I've already put forth. If you were raptured up tonight you would probably argue with God Himself on how incorrect He was in doing it because rapture isn,t a word found in the Bible, so further discussion on this subject would be a waste of our time. I'm completely satisfied with what has come forth from these discussions. You have helped me to see how I came to believe what I believe now. Which has brought me full circle in the confusion of how the scriptures could be interpreted in so many many directions. Thank you for your time, and that raps it up for me in this thread. Walkin away satisfied .

[Hitch]

Actually, I'm not required to prove anything more than I've already put forth. If you were raptured up tonight you would probably argue with God Himself on how incorrect He was in doing it because rapture isn,t a word found in the Bible, so further discussion on this subject would be a waste of our time. I'm completely satisfied with what has come forth from these discussions. You have helped me to see how I came to believe what I believe now. Which has brought me full circle in the confusion of how the scriptures could be interpreted in so many many directions. Thank you for your time, and that raps it up for me in this thread. Walkin away satisfied .With any luck that will come as Im gutting a bull or goat...