What Is Dispensationalism?
Pastor Dave
What is Dispensationalism?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
Introduction
Since the mid-1800s, the system of theology known
as Dispensationalism has exerted great influence on
how many Christians view the doctrines of ecclesiology
and eschatology. In this article, we will survey the
history of Dispensationalism and look at the key beliefs
associated with the system.
History of Dispensationalism
Theologians continue to argue over the origin of
Dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists argue
that the basic beliefs of Dispensationalism were held by the
apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not
Dispensationalists often argue that dispensationalism is a
new theology that began in the 19th century. What is clear,
though, is that Dispensationalism, as a system, began to
take shape in the mid-1800s.
1. John Nelson Darby - The beginning of systematized
Dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby
(1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at
Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe
in a future salvation and restoration of national Israel.
Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that
Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy Earthly
blessings that were different from the Heavenly blessings
experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction
between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe
in an �any moment� rapture of the church that was followed
by Daniel�s Seventieth Week in which Israel would once
again take center stage in God�s plan. After this period,
Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in
which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with
Israel [1]. According to Paul Enns, �Darby advanced
the scheme of Dispensationalism by noting that each
dispensation places man under some condition; man has
some responsibility before God. Darby also noted that
each dispensation culminates in failure.� [2]. Darby saw
seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood;
(2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles;
(6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own
testimony, Darby says his Dispensational theology
was fully formed by 1833.
2. The Brethren Movement Dispensationalism first took
shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century
Britain. Those within the Brethren Movement rejected a
special role for ordained clergy and stressed the spiritual
giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under
the Spirit�s guidance, to teach and admonish each other
from Scripture. The writings of the Brethren had a broad
impact on evangelical Protestantism and influenced ministers
in the United States such as D. L. Moody, James Brookes,
J. R. Graves, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield [3].
3. The Bible Conference Movement Beginning in the 1870s,
various Bible conferences began to spring up in various
parts of the United States. These conferences helped spread
Dispensationalism. The Niagara conferences (1870� early
1900s) were not started to promote Dispensationalism but
Dispensational ideas were often promoted at these
conferences. The American Bible and Prophetic Conferences
from 1878�1914 promoted a dispensational theology.
4. The Bible Institute Movement In the late 1800s, several
Bible institutes were founded that taught Dispensational
theology including The Nyack Bible Institute (1882),
The Boston Missionary Training School (1889), and
The Moody Bible Institute (1889).
5. The Scofield Reference Bible C. I. Scofield, a
participant in the Niagara conferences, formed a board of
Bible conference teachers in 1909 and produced what came
to be known as, the Scofield Reference Bible. This work
became famous in the United States with its theological
annotations right next to the Scripture. This reference
Bible became the greatest influence in the spread of
Dispensationalism.
6. Dallas Theological Seminary After World War I, many
Dispensational Bible schools were formed. Led by Dallas
Theological Seminary (1924), Dispensationalism began to
be promoted in formal, academic settings. Under Scofield,
Dispensationalism entered a scholastic period that was later
carried on by his successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer. Further
promotion of Dispensationalism took place with the writing
of Chafer�s eight-volume Systematic Theology.
Foundational Features of Dispensationalism [4]
1. Hermeneutical approach that stresses a literal
fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel though
the issue of �literal interpretation� is heavily debated
today, many Dispensationalists claim that consistent
literal interpretation applied to all areas of the Bible,
including Old Testament promises to Israel,
is a distinguishing mark of Dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists usually argue that the progress of
revelation, including New Testament revelation, does not
cancel Old Testament promises made with national Israel.
Although there is internal debate concerning how much
the church is related to the Old Testament covenants
and promises, Dispensationalists believe national Israel
will see the literal fulfillment of the promises made with
her in the Old Testament.
2. Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made
with national Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) must
be fulfilled literally with national Israel although the
church may participate in or partially fulfill the Biblical
covenants, they do not take over the covenants to the
exclusion of national Israel. Physical and spiritual
promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel.
3. Distinct future for national Israel �Only
Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for
ethnic Israel as a nation.� [5]. This future includes
a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity
and function.
4. The church is distinct from Israel. The church does
not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to
as Israel. According to Dispensationalists, the church
did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin
until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament
promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with
the church. Evidences often used by Dispensationalists
to show that the church is distinct from Israel include:
(a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18;
(b) an essential element of the church�Spirit baptism�
did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor
12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church
as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col.
1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated
with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were
not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the �new man�
nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church
is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel;
(f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the
New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20);
(g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct.
On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, �In the book of
Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously.
The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church)
nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept
distinct.� [6].
5. Multiple senses of �seed of Abraham�. According to
Feinberg, the designation �seed of Abraham� is used in
different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference
to ethnic, biological Jews (cf. Romans 9�11). Second,
it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a
spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile,
who are spiritually related to God by faith (cf. Romans
4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). Feinberg argues that the spiritual
sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to
such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no
longer related to the biblical covenants.
6. Philosophy of history that emphasizes both the spiritual
and physical aspects of God�s covenants According to John
Feinberg, �nondispensational treatments of the nature of
the covenants and of Israel�s future invariably emphasize
soteriological and spiritual issues, whereas dispensational
treatments emphasize both the spiritual/soteriological and
the social, economic, and political aspects of things.� [7].
Other significant, although not necessarily exclusive
features of Dispensationalism, include: (1) the authority
of Scripture; (2) belief in dispensations; (3) emphasis
on Bible prophecy; (4) futuristic premillennialism;
(5) pretribulationism; and (6) a view of imminency
that sees Christ�s return as an �any-moment� possibility.
Variations Within Dispensationalism
The above features characterize the beliefs of those within the
Dispensational tradition. However, as Blaising writes,
�Dispensationalism has not been a static tradition.� [8].
There is no standard creed that freezes its theological
development at any given point in history. Blaising
offers three forms of dispensational thought:
1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850�1940s)
Classical Dispensationalism refers to the views of British
and American Dispensationalists between the writings
of Darby and Chafer�s eight-volume Systematic Theology.
The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible
are often seen as the key representation of the classical
dispensational tradition [9].
One important feature of classical dispensationalism was
its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is
seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related
to Heaven and the other to the Earth. The �Heavenly
humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from
all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead.
Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had
not died but who were preserved by God from death, the
heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had
died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.� [10].
Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and
individualistic nature of the church in classical
Dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that
the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption
[11]. In this tradition, there was little emphasis on
social or political activity for the church.
Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield,
Lewis Sperry Chafer
2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950�1985)
Revised Dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism
of Heavenly and Earthly peoples. The emphasis in this
strand of the Dispensational tradition was on two peoples
of God�Israel and the church. These two groups are
structured differently with different dispensational roles
and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is
the same. The distinction between Israel and the church,
as different anthropological groups, will continue
throughout eternity.
Revised Dispensationalists usually reject the idea that
there are two new covenants�one for Israel and one for
the church. They also see the church and Israel as existing
together during the millennium and eternal state.
Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost,
Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.
3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986�present) What
does �progressive� mean? The title �progressive
Dispensationalism� refers to the �progressive� relationship
of the successive dispensations to one another [12].
Charles Ryrie notes that, �The adjective �progressive�
refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic,
and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today
(as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).�
[13].
�One of the striking differences between progressive and
earlier Dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view
the church as an anthropological category in the same class
as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile
people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity
(in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation
alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is
precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles)
as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of
Christ.� [14].
Progressive Dispensationalists see more continuity between
Israel and the church than the other two variations within
Dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the
church compose the �people of God� and both are related
to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual
equality, however, does not mean that there are not
functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive
Dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in
this age and they still see a future distinct identity and
function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.
Progressive Dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see
an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ,
seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during
the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign
awaits Israel in the millennium.
Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock,
and Robert L. Saucy
[1] See Floyd Elmore, "Darby, John Nelson," Dictionary
of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, ed., (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1996) 83-84.
[2] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology
(Chicago: Moody, 1989) 516.
[3] See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive
Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 10.
[4] These essentials of Dispensationalism are taken from
John S. Feinberg's, "Systems of Discontinuity," Continuity
and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between
the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton:
Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the
well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth
by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism
is based on the three following characteristics:
(1) a distinction between Israel and the church;
(2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the
glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world.
See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1995) 38-40.
[5] Feinberg, 83.
[6] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link
in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel, 1994) 118.
[7] Feinberg, 85.
[8] Blaising and Bock, 21.
[9] Blaising and Bock, 22.
[10] Blaising and Bock, 24.
[11] Blaising and Bock, 27.
[12] Blaising and Bock, 49.
[13] Charles C. Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism",
Issues in Dispensationalism, John R. Master and Wesley
R. Willis, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 20.
[14] Blaising and Bock, 49.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible."
- George Washington
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
> Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for
> ethnic Israel as a nation." [5]. This future includes
> a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity
> and function.
Now this surprises me. The guy has a PhD and makes this absurd claim that
*only* Dispensationalism "clearly sees a distinctive future for ethnic
Israel as a nation?" That would be true only if you wished to include most
futurists in with Dispensationalism, which clearly is *not* the case. Many,
many futurists believe in a distinct future for national Israel, just as
there is a future for most nations, without listing themselves as members of
Dispensationalism in the least. You really have to broaden your definition
of Dispensationalist if you're to include someone like me, who is a
futurist, believes in a future for national Israel, and yet rejects
pretribulationism and the cessation of the spiritual gifts.
> 4. The church is distinct from Israel. The church does
> not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to
> as Israel. According to Dispensationalists, the church
> did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin
> until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament
> promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with
> the church.....
I don't consider myself a Dispensationalist, and I reject this premise as
well. The Church consists of remnants of all nations, including Israel. So
Israel can be distinguished from the church, but Israel cannot be excluded
from the church. Since Israel is indeed to be distinguished from a church
that consists of all--not just one--nation, it is true that promises given
only to the nation Israel must be fulfilled only by Israel. But this is a
promise fulfilled to the church as well, since the church is given promises
that guarantee a measure of life and prosperity for all nations.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
>> Foundational Features of Dispensationalism [4]
>> ....3. Distinct future for national Israel "Only
>> Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for
>> ethnic Israel as a nation." [5]. This future includes
>> a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity
>> and function.
>
> Now this surprises me. The guy has a PhD and makes
> this absurd claim that *only* Dispensationalism "clearly
> sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation?"
You know exactly which context he said that in,
but you thought that you would snip all of the
context and pretend that it was just a general
and a political statement.
>> 4. The church is distinct from Israel. The church does
>> not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to
>> as Israel. According to Dispensationalists, the church
>> did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin
>> until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament
>> promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with
>> the church.....
>
> I don't consider myself a Dispensationalist
And yet, you are one.
> and I reject this premise as well.
Like I care? You still believe the garbage that they do,
which makes you a Dispensationalist.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do
for others and the world, remains and is immortal.�
- Albert Pines
::: Jesus is LORD :::
"Pastor" Dave newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com wrote in
bbmqj59dqrmig0tdm...@4ax.com
I would like to warn the readers of this false "Pastor" Dave.
This "Pastor" has to ignore whole passages from the Bible to keep his
anti-Semitism and false doctrine abotu Jesus' Second Coming. He pretends
to know better than the Apostle Paul who says that ALL ISRAEL WILL BE
SAVED!
For I don't desire, brothers, to have you ignorant of this mystery, so
that you won't be wise in your own conceits, that a partial hardening
has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in,
and so all Israel will be saved. Even as it is written, "There will come
out of Zion the Deliverer, And he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
This is my covenant to them, When I will take away their sins."
Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But concerning
the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and
the calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:25-29 WEB)
*+*^+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*
SOME BIBLE FACTS ABOUT FALSE TEACHERS:
1. Jesus warned about false teachers (Matthew 7:15-17).
2. Paul warned about false teachers (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 3:13; 2
Timothy 4:3-4).
3. Peter warned about false teachers and said that many will follow
them (2 Peter 2:1-2).
4. John warned about false teachers (1 John 2:18-20).
5. Jude warned about false teachers (Jude 3-4).
Source: Bro. Ted's List after Church False Doctrines By Bro. David Cloud
http://www.greatpreachers.org/false_doctrines.html
Ted L
wrote:
Thanks for the warning about the false teacher "Pastor Dave".
And Happy new year Vera mine sister.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
76c9a439-b327-44fc...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com
Thanks, and you are welcome, dear Bros. Ted.
A Happy New Year to you and yours, too!
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> Thanks for the warning about the false teacher "Pastor Dave".
>
> And Happy new year Vera mine sister.
Isn't it amazing people keep saying this about me,
but those same people do nothing but launch
personal attacks, spewing venom at me and cannot
prove me wrong. Now what does that say about
them and their "Christianity"?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Grace isn't a little prayer you chant before receiving
a meal. It's a way to live." - Jackie Windspear
Thommadura
At least you admit the story of christianity is false
That's a start
Ted L
wrote:
...
(to add more realism to your sock puppet...but be sure to get
permission from your parent or guardian first)
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> On Jan 1, 3:17�pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> ...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yz9p5t3
>
> (to add more realism to your sock puppet...
> but be sure to get permission from your
> parent or guardian first)
All you do, when you post such nonsense,
is prove three things:
1) You are immature.
2) You are a poor example of Christianity
on many fronts, including the one
that says that you're supposed to
prove your case (give a reason).
3) That you know you cannot disprove
what I post, since if you could, then
you most certainly would and silence
me once and for all.
But hey, what do I know? After all, I'm not
a Futurist and that must mean that I just
don't understand that making fun of people
while snipping what they say and then
pretending that's proof of my doctrine
is the right "Christian" way to go, right?
Thanks for showing us all what it means
to be a "good Christian". <chuckle> :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Thommadura
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 16:54:53 -0800 (PST), Ted L
> <spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>> On Jan 1, 3:17 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yz9p5t3
>>
>> (to add more realism to your sock puppet...
>> but be sure to get permission from your
>> parent or guardian first)
>
> All you do, when you post such nonsense,
> is prove three things:
>
> 1) You are immature.
>
> 2) You are a poor example of Christianity
> on many fronts, including the one
> that says that you're supposed to
> prove your case (give a reason).
>
> 3) That you know you cannot disprove
> what I post, since if you could, then
> you most certainly would and silence
> me once and for all.
>
Gee - and still another judgemental theists who does not care what his
own religion teaches - that does not apparenlty apply to him!
Ted L
wrote:
> 3) That you know you cannot disprove
> what I post, since if you could, then
> you most certainly would and silence
> me once and for all.
Wrong again, false teacher. There's nothing in the biblical
prescription for false teachers that your repeated refusal to accept
correction will cause you to shut your mouth. Only God will do this
through chastening or wrath.
Meanwhile, false teacher, you may want to look into ways of livening
up your make believe following...http://www.sockholm.com/games2.htm
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> On Jan 1, 7:14�pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> 3) That you know you cannot disprove
>> � � what I post, since if you could, then
>> � � you most certainly would and silence
>> � � me once and for all.
>
> Wrong again, false teacher.
Really? Look at the subject line of this thread
and your glaring approval of such a thing.
> There's nothing in the biblical prescription
> for false teachers that your repeated refusal
> to accept correction will cause you to shut
> your mouth.
Look at how you are unable to even form
a coherent thought. But it does go to show
that what I said about Futurists always
ending up being self-contradictory is true.
You claim in the same message that:
1) There's nothing in the Bible that says
that you need to prove that I am indeed
a "false teacher" as you claim I am.
2) You claim that I have been repeatedly
corrected.
These two statements are self-contradictory.
Or do you now wish to look even more foolish
by claiming that they aren't, because you're
so juvenile that you actually think that just
saying they aren't means they aren't?
The truth is, that ALL you do is hurl personal
insults at me and falsely label that "correction".
You have nothing to offer in the way of what
you claim would be Biblical correction and
furthermore, you're either lying when you
say that there's nothing in the Bible about
correcting false teachers, or you are ignorant
of what the Bible says about it. Either way,
you are in error and yet, pretend to teach
and on top of that, pretend that insulting
me is equal to teaching and correction.
But speaking of what is and what isn't in
the Bible, why don't you show us where
in the Bible it says that you should toss
personal insults at someone who does not
agree with everything you claim is the truth.
Or will you also try to avoid that as well?
Of course you will, since you know that
that is not found anywhere in the Bible
as a proper method of correction and
because you don't have the integrity
to admit your error, nor that what you
are doing is against and not for Christ.
You are a coward, who is unwilling to face
the facts and the facts anger you and so
you, like Vera and the rest of the obnoxious
haters, lash out like a little child against the
correction that you are receiving right now
and you don't even have the courage to
face the issues that I bring up, which is
why we find you, like the rest of the haters,
in threads like this one, titled with my name
and an insult and nothing of substance in
the body of the message.
Now run away from that, little girl! <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"A text without a context becomes a proof-text
for a pre-text" - Carson
Ted L
wrote:
"Look at how you are unable to even form a coherent thought waa! waa!
waa! but it does go to show that what I said about Futurists always
ending up being self-contradictory is true waa! waa! waa! you claim in
the same message that: 1) there's nothing in the Bible that says that
you need to prove that I am indeed a "false teacher" as you claim I
am waa! waa! waa! 2) you claim that I have been repeatedly corrected
waa! waa! waa! these two statements are self-contradictory waa! waa!
waa! or do you now wish to look even more foolish by claiming that
they aren't, because you're so juvenile that you actually think that
just saying they aren't means they aren't waa! waa! waa! the truth is,
that ALL you do is hurl personal insults at me and falsely label that
"correction" waa! waa! waa! you have nothing to offer in the way of
what you claim would be Biblical correction and furthermore, you're
either lying when you say that there's nothing in the Bible about
correcting false teachers, or you are ignorant of what the Bible says
about it waa! waa! waa! either way, you are in error and yet, pretend
to teach and on top of that, pretend that insulting me is equal to
teaching and correction waa! waa! waa! but speaking of what is and
what isn't in the Bible, why don't you show us where in the Bible it
says that you should toss personal insults at someone who does not
agree with everything you claim is the truth waa! waa! waa! Or will
you also try to avoid that as well waa! waa! waa! of course you will,
since you know that that is not found anywhere in the Bible as a
proper method of correction and because you don't have the integrity
to admit your error, nor that what you are doing is against and not
for Christ waa! waa! waa! you are a coward, who is unwilling to face
the facts and the facts anger you and so you, like Vera and the rest
of the obnoxious haters, lash out like a little child against the
correction that you are receiving right now and you don't even have
the courage to face the issues that I bring up, which is why we find
you, like the rest of the haters, in threads like this one, titled
with my name and an insult and nothing of substance in the body of the
messagewaa! waa! waa! now run away from that, little girl waa! waa!
waa! <ta-hee ta--hee ta-hee>"
Really, false teacher; you are quite hysterical.
Howzat sock puppet congregation coming along?
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Ha, ha, ha!!!
He could do that instead of bombarding the group with his false
doctrine.
Jesus is Lord!
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Jan 2, 2:10�pm, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com>
So now you add your own thoughts to my words
and pretend it's me. You are a sad little boy.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Is single parenting something that should be chosen?
While I don't doubt that a single parent can raise
a child, I don't think single parenting gives that
child an advantage.
Ahs Believes Paster Dave!
wrote:
Yeah you tell them ahs believes you paster!
And checks out mahs cool profiles pic
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:43:27 -0800 (PST), Ted L
><spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> Thanks for the warning about the false teacher "Pastor Dave".
>>
>> And Happy new year Vera mine sister.
>
>Isn't it amazing people keep saying this about me,
>but those same people do nothing but launch
>personal attacks, spewing venom at me and cannot
>prove me wrong.
Well, how about this for proof Dave? You say that all Bible prophecy
was fulfilled by the first century and I say that you are wrong.
Ezekiel says in,
Ezekiel 38:16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a
cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I
will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I
am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog."
Now, you provide some verifiable evidence that this battle as
described in Ezekiel 38 & 39 has been fulfilled or, accept the fact
that you have been proven wrong. BTW, an answer such as you
originally presented,
"Actually, you asked, "If you lived back then..."
Is not an answer, at least to most of average intelligence.
>Now what does that say about
>them and their "Christianity"?
You cannot answer the question so what does that say about your
Biblical scholarship, or lack there of, and your replacement theology
doctrine?
Bear
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
Dave!" <daves.so...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> On Jan 3, 9:03�am, Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>Yeah you tell them ahs believes you paster!
>
>And checks out mahs cool profiles pic
Here's the sad part. When you make fun of me,
because you know you'll get pats on the back
from others who like to make fun of me, all that
you're doing, since I directly quoted God's word
and said no more than it says, is making fun of
God and His word. But you are so wrapped up
in your vain doctrine, that all you can see, is how
you get glorified by your peers, for making fun
of me and somehow, for some reason, that makes
you feel good. And you never question why and
you never have a second thought about whether
or not that's how Christ would have treated me,
nor whether or not I am well aware that you
would never treat a pastor that way in real life.
But here you are, ridiculing and mocking a pastor.
Now I wonder if you would be willing to show your
own pastor this message of yours, to see what he
might have to say about it.
Of course you wouldn't. But that isn't the really sad
part, son. The really sad part is that even knowing
that, you will continue on with your attacks on me
and at the same time, post other messages in which
you will pretend to be a loving Christian, seeking to
benefit mankind with your supposed "Biblical wisdom",
all the while, avoiding what the Bible says and attacking
those who show you what it does say. (:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Nietzsche, was a liar, cheater, promiscuous homosexual
and basically a self-depracating, "free for all" type
person. But atheists love him, because he promoted
atheism and the idea that belief in God is irrational.
I find this interesting, since it proves my claim that
atheists are always self-contradicting in their beliefs,
since one after another, they always end up doing
exactly that!
Let's look at what else Nietzsche said...
"The irrationality of a thing is not an argument
against its existence. Rather, a condition of it."
- Nietzsche
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
Dave!" <daves.so...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Btw, I'm sure the black community is really happy with your
choice of words! But don't worry, your Futurist buddies
won't care how much you attack black people, as long as
you're attacking me in the process. They'll only jump on
those who oppose them, even if it means putting words
into their mouths that they never said, while they applaud
you for actually saying those same disgusting things and
that will be because you were attacking me in the process.
But hey, what great Christians you all are! And I'm sure
that you can show me where Jess prescribed your tone!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
�A man who hasn't found something worth dying for,
is not fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 09:07:02 -0800 (PST), "Ahs Believes Paster
>Dave!" <daves.so...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> On Jan 3, 9:03�am, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>Yeah you tell them ahs believes you paster!
>>
>>And checks out mahs cool profiles pic
>
>Here's the sad part. When you make fun of me,
>because you know you'll get pats on the back
>from others who like to make fun of me, all that
>you're doing, since I directly quoted God's word
>and said no more than it says, is making fun of
>God and His word. But you are so wrapped up
>in your vain doctrine, that all you can see, is how
>you get glorified by your peers, for making fun
>of me and somehow, for some reason, that makes
>you feel good. And you never question why and
>you never have a second thought about whether
>or not that's how Christ would have treated me,
>nor whether or not I am well aware that you
>would never treat a pastor that way in real life.
>
How do you know that? I would say anything to your face as I do from
the keyboard, perhaps he would also.
>But here you are, ridiculing and mocking a pastor.
>Now I wonder if you would be willing to show your
>own pastor this message of yours, to see what he
>might have to say about it.
>
>Of course you wouldn't. But that isn't the really sad
>part, son. The really sad part is that even knowing
>that, you will continue on with your attacks on me
>and at the same time, post other messages in which
>you will pretend to be a loving Christian, seeking to
>benefit mankind with your supposed "Biblical wisdom",
>all the while, avoiding what the Bible says and attacking
>those who show you what it does say. (:
There is a huge difference in one who is a real Pastor and one that
only claims to be.
Speaking of being a loving Christian, Dave provides a wonderful
example as demonstrated below.
Remember any of this "pastor"?
My very first post to this NG was this question�
"when did the battle of Ezekiel 38 & 39 occur and who were the
participants?"
And below are some of the profound answers that I received from the so
called "pastor". His quotes are enclosed in brackets ([])
[Actually, you asked, "If you lived back then...".]
This was his answer to my question, "when did the battle of Ezekiel 38
& 39 occur and who were the participants?" Very demonstrative of a
real "pastor".
[People do NOT have a right to believe whatever they want to! Not in
this area, since this is about God, not the laws of some country.]
[Agreed! Did I call you "stupid"? I don't recall saying that to you.
If I did, then I sincerely apologize, since you have done nothing to
offend me, nor insult me!]
***Please notice the admission by the "pastor" then look at his next
paragraph.***
[Sound stupid??? No less stupid that what you're saying! I'm sorry, I
truly am for that insult, but it is true! One can say any damn thing
they want to and claim it "could be". Ya know, now you're just acting
the idiot. I'm sorry, but you are!]
[In other words, you're not too bright. But if you're going to
respond, then expect that I'm not a moron, who is going to be lead
around by the nose, by a liar like you! Bottom line: You respond to
MY post, then respond ON POINT and stop trying to AVOID the points I
made and then lying about that simple fact!]
Provide a quote where I lied.
[Or, you can choose to ignore my posts altogether. Thus far, all you
have done, is lie and try to make me guilty of your sins!]
Provide a quote where I lied.
[Fact: You ignore what I post, ask a question and then when I ask you
why you ignored what I posted, you dishonestly and intentionally and
falsely claim that I am running away from your question, which was
nothing more than a diversion attempt on your part, to avoid what I
posted.]
Provide a quote of me claiming that you ran away.
[I am not going to forget this and it is not going to change, because
you're too stupid to realize that I'm not as stupid as you are.]
[See above, dipshit.]
[Do you practice at being this stupid? Or does it come naturally for
you?!]
[Now tells me, stupid ass, how does that fit into 21st century
warfare!]
[Now when, ass wipe, was the last time you saw an army in the 21st
century raiding a country for the purpose of taking their livestock,
dip shit!]
[Now tell us, dumb ass, since when have armies been using wooden
weapons?!]
[Now come on, little Dispy nut job! Tell us how it's going to happen,
AS IT IS DESCRIBED, which is what you required!]
[You are an idiot! And you're so brainwashed by your foolish
doctrine, that you can't even see reason and logic! And besides this,
as I said, your stupid, moronic question was nothing more than a
diversion tactic, to try to avoid every damn fact I posted here!]
My question was, "when did the battle described in Ezekiel 38 & 39
take place?"
[But go ahead and tell us how "this means that" and the cities now
have different names, but then make sure to demand again, that I show
you where it happened, AS DESCRIBED, while ignoring that rule for
yourself, you lying sack of crap!]
[But hey, I'll send them again, you cowardly little hypocrite! Then
you can keep running away, while demanding that I believe they're
going to be physically, literally fulfilled today!]
[You asked... "When did the battle of Ezekiel 38 & 39 occur and who
were the participants?" and claimed that it was "To understand the
Preterist view", which was a damn lie, since you rail against it every
chance you get, you liar!]
[And yet, when you ran away from these questions, what did you do, you
lying little cowardly boy?! Why, you went to a web site, where they
would stroke your ego and feigned that you were posting the same
question "to try to better understand the Preterist position" and
claimed that you just couldn't get an answer to your question!]
Every statement made in the above paragraph is false.
[Your question was bullshit and you know it! And you ran away like a
little girl, when I exposed the fact that your "question" and your
demand was asked when you responded to a post I sent, to which you
responded to, by snipping almost everything I said and then making
your demand! And when I said something, you tried to deny it, as if
doing so, would make my message disappear from usenet!]
[Let me tell you something about *YOU* that *IS* literal...
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E !]
[There's more!... I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T T-O S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E !]
[Oh yea! There's also at least one more!... L-I-A-R !]
[I am the one who gets to ask you questions, since you are the one who
responded by trying to avoid my post and change the subject! I am not
required to answer the questions of a dishonest person, who knows that
they can't deal with the original post and therefore, tries to get out
of it by changing the subject!]
Where is your evidence that would prove that I am dishonest, your word
is not good enough.
My very first post to this group was asking the question about the
battle in Ezekiel.
[And why is it that you claim it's all literal and insult me for not
taking it all as being physically literal and yet, in Rev 19, you
claim that Jesus literally rides a horse down from Heaven, but then
claim that the sword sticking out of His mouth while He's doing that
is symbolic for the word of God?! Do I smell hypocrisy? OF COURSE I
DO, BECAUSE YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!!! ]
The above accusations are completely false. The "pastor" cannot prove
one accusation that he made, again proving him to be a liar that he
brags about no one ever proving that he is guilty of.
And he pretends to be a "pastor"????
*******************
Some very convincing evidence of the authenticity of Dave being a
"pastor" except in his own mind, don't you think?
Bear
Ted L
...
> Some very convincing evidence of the authenticity of Dave being a
> "pastor" except in his own mind, don't you think?
>
> Bear
IMO, the bottom line with paster Dave is that his objective has not
changed from Paul's mention of it to Timothy (2 Timothy 2:18), that is
to "overthrow the faith of some."
When these types enter into a Bible church and attempt to do so, the
prescription is plainly to mark them, admonish them, reject them, and
avoid them. Usenet, television, and radio venues all belong to the
prince of the power of the air, so anything goes and so here is where
such tend to gravitate. No surprise that his ideas about the
resurrection being past are also central in the Emergent church
movement led by the likes of Brian McLaren.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
> On Jan 3, 6:53�pm, bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>...
>> Some very convincing evidence of the authenticity of Dave being a
>> "pastor" except in his own mind, don't you think?
>>
>> Bear
>
> IMO, the bottom line with paster Dave is that his objective
> has not changed from Paul's mention of it to Timothy
> (2 Timothy 2:18), that is to "overthrow the faith of some."
What I seek to overthrow, is faith in your fairy tales.
You claiming something is Biblical, does not make it
so, nor does you insulting me make you look "Biblical".
> When these types enter into a Bible church and
> attempt to do so, the prescription is plainly to
> mark them, admonish them, reject them, and
> avoid them.
And yet, what you do is act like a child and insult me,
antagonize me and think that makes you look "Christian".
And the truth is, you run like a little coward when faced
with what the Bible actually does say.
As for "entering a Bible church":
1) A Bible church is one that believes the Bible
and does not cower away from it, as you do.
2) A Bible church adheres to God's word, unlike you.
3) I am a pastor. I do not sit in a pew and pretend
to be one, as you do.
> usenet belongs to the prince of the power of the air
And yet, here you are, spending your time
insulting and personally attacking whomever
will not bow to you.
Now I wonder just whom is the worker for
that prince here???
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Don't give up. Moses was once a basket case."
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>On Jan 3, 6:53�pm, bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>...
>> Some very convincing evidence of the authenticity of Dave being a
>> "pastor" except in his own mind, don't you think?
>>
>> Bear
>
>IMO, the bottom line with paster Dave
...is that he has people like you who refuse to speak
directly to him and instead, think that talking about
him with nothing but personal attacks in the example
of Christianity for all to follow.
You are a coward. A paper tiger.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific
work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to
the gates of the temple of science are written the
words: 'Ye must have faith'. It is a quality which
the scientist cannot dispense with." - Max Planck
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
Let everyone note that if I choose to kill file you,
how long afterward you will still be posting messages
about me, while you claim to be the one seeking that
good Christian peace. For how many years will you
be doing that? For most, it's been years now.
But hey, I'm the evil one, right? <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Save the Earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!
bear
I agree.
Bear
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 18:06:37 -0800 (PST), Ted L
><spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>> On Jan 3, 6:53�pm, bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>> Some very convincing evidence of the authenticity of Dave being a
>>> "pastor" except in his own mind, don't you think?
>>>
>>> Bear
>>
>> IMO, the bottom line with paster Dave is that his objective
>> has not changed from Paul's mention of it to Timothy
>> (2 Timothy 2:18), that is to "overthrow the faith of some."
>
>What I seek to overthrow, is faith in your fairy tales.
>You claiming something is Biblical, does not make it
>so, nor does you insulting me make you look "Biblical".
>
Why not quote some specifics and then provide something better than
your word to prove what you say. You have been proven by numerous
people to have little regard for "truth".
>
>> When these types enter into a Bible church and
>> attempt to do so, the prescription is plainly to
>> mark them, admonish them, reject them, and
>> avoid them.
>
>And yet, what you do is act like a child and insult me,
>antagonize me and think that makes you look "Christian".
>
Dose that mean that when you insult others that you are acting "like a
child"? Would you explain why it is ok for you to insult and cuss
people but if they say anything disrespectful of you, you take offense
to it. Oh yea, I forgot, you are a "pastor", right?
>And the truth is, you run like a little coward when faced
>with what the Bible actually does say.
>
What chutzpah Dave exhibits. I persisted in asking him questions that
he could not answer with supportive scripture so he kills file me so
he can pretend they do not exists. But he is not "a little
coward".........no, he is a big one. After telling me so often how
stupid I am, he cannot stand the fact that I ask him questions that he
cannot answer.
>As for "entering a Bible church":
>
>1) A Bible church is one that believes the Bible
> and does not cower away from it, as you do.
>
You mean like this example Dave.
Ezekiel 38:16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a
cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I
will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I
am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog."
There it is Dave, in black and white, a verbatim quote from scripture,
right out of the Bible. I believe it will come to pass just as it is
written in the Bible. What do you believe Dave, is this verse part of
the Bible or is it not?
>2) A Bible church adheres to God's word, unlike you.
>
Obviously, Dave does not attend a Bible church, as he certainly does
not adhere to God's word. In fact, he blatantly contradicts God's
word.
Ezekiel 28:25 'Thus says the Lord God, "When I gather the house of
Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and will
manifest My holiness in them in the sight of the nations, then they
will live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob.
Ezekiel 28:26 "They will live in it securely; and they will build
houses, plant vineyards and live securely when I execute judgments
upon all who scorn them round about them. Then they will know that I
am the Lord their God." ' "
This is only two of many verses that validate God's intention and
promises to the nation Israel, yet, this is what Dave says.
"God is not interested in a strip of dirt, but in souls! God is not
looking to save the dirt, but the people! Israel is not a national
thing, but a spiritual thing and national Israel as "God's people" is
over with, since they "filled up the measure of their sin", when they
rejected the Christ, as Jesus told them in Matthew 23."
Notice that Dave does not quote scripture in context that would prove
what he says, he only gives his word, which has been proven not to be
reliable.
>3) I am a pastor. I do not sit in a pew and pretend
> to be one, as you do.
>
Yea, and I am a thermonuclear physicists also. He loudly proclaims
that he is, however, I have never seen where he has offered any proof
of it being a fact and he certainly does not act like any Pastor that
I have ever had.
Now I can believe that he does not sit in a pew.
>
>> usenet belongs to the prince of the power of the air
>
>And yet, here you are, spending your time
>insulting and personally attacking whomever
>will not bow to you.
>
Dave is so generous in condemning others for doing exactly what he
does, and he calls others "hypocrites", really!
>Now I wonder just whom is the worker for
>that prince here???
Yea Dave, why do you and I not take Ezekiel 36 through 48 for a verse
by verse, phrase by phrase and word by word study using nothing but
scripture and see which of us in reality believes the Bible is the
word of God?
Come on Dave, prove to everyone that you are not a coward, that you
have some integrity and can prove with scripture your replacement
theology.
Dave has me kill filed so he does not have to see what I write, so
perhaps others could relay my challenge to him. I think his excuses
would be quite entertaining.
Bear
::: Jesus is LORD :::
l7m1k5tbqkf3q0kc4...@4ax.com
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:17:50 -0500, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @
> tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:43:27 -0800 (PST), Ted L
>> <spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for the warning about the false teacher "Pastor Dave".
>>>
>>> And Happy new year Vera mine sister.
>>
>> Isn't it amazing people keep saying this about me,
>> but those same people do nothing but launch
>> personal attacks, spewing venom at me and cannot
>> prove me wrong.
>
> Well, how about this for proof Dave? You say that all Bible prophecy
> was fulfilled by the first century and I say that you are wrong.
>
> Ezekiel says in,
>
> Ezekiel 38:16 and you will come up against My people Israel like a
> cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I
> will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I
> am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog."
>
> Now, you provide some verifiable evidence that this battle as
> described in Ezekiel 38 & 39 has been fulfilled or, accept the fact
> that you have been proven wrong. BTW, an answer such as you
> originally presented,
>
> "Actually, you asked, "If you lived back then..."
>
> Is not an answer, at least to most of average intelligence.
So true!
>> Now what does that say about
>> them and their "Christianity"?
>
> You cannot answer the question so what does that say about your
> Biblical scholarship, or lack there of, and your replacement theology
> doctrine?
Good question, but he cannot answer it. He will come up with even more
fog, and later accuse you of snipping parts for it, while you just tried
to get through to see a few things that resembled the truth.
Welcome back, Bear! You were missed. :-)
A very Happy New Year 2010!
> Bear
Jesus is Lord!
::: Jesus is LORD :::
bear
Dave kill filed me a long time ago, that was the only way he could
stop my persistent questions that he cannot answer.
>Welcome back, Bear! You were missed. :-)
>
Thank you, although I bet Dave and perhaps some others would not share
your sentiments.
>A very Happy New Year 2010!
>
And to you as well.
Bear
>
>Jesus is Lord!
>
Dave James
I just read your article on dispensationalism and thought that it was
accurate and well-written. Thank you for this.
With your permission I would like to consider reproducing it as a
guest blog on The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.
Would you be willing to do this?
Do you have any website or someplace where I could find some bio /
ministry information about you personally to put with that.
Thanks for considering it.
Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
www.biblicalintegrity.org
bear
Hello Dave,
If the "pastor" has written an accurate article on dispensationalism,
I would be very interested in reading it, would you mind sharing the
article you are referring to? Perhaps you could provide a link.
Thanks
Bear
Ted L
> I agree.
>
> Bear
Well then I like the way you think, brother...
I actually found out about McLaren (both this and other of this
movement's apostasies) mostly through David Cloud's WayOfLife.org
Friday church notes.
Ted L
> Dave has me kill filed so he does not have to see what I write, so
> perhaps others could relay my challenge to him. I think his excuses
> would be quite entertaining.
>
> Bear
I'm sure he knows about them but doesn't want to be mired down in a
losing battle. He'd rather seek to trouble weaker brethren as do all
false teachers. His objective isn't to win a debate but to simply
debate and hope to overthrow faith.
(..Matt B...
Hi Ted I went to Brian McLaren website like this article there
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4674/53/.
God Bless
Matt
bear
Thanks Matt, a very interesting article.
Bear
bear
You are probably correct Ted, however, I believe we should not allow
the false teachers to have a free ride. I have no illusions of
convincing those who blasphemy God's word to have a change of heart,
but there may be some who are searching, as I once was, that should be
made aware of the wolves in sheep's clothing.
Bear
Ted L
> You are probably correct Ted, however, I believe we should not allow
> the false teachers to have a free ride. I have no illusions of
> convincing those who blasphemy God's word to have a change of heart,
> but there may be some who are searching, as I once was, that should be
> made aware of the wolves in sheep's clothing.
>
> Bear
Yes and thanks be to God for your (and Vera's and Randy's and sorry-to-
whomever-else-I'm-missing's) patience in these efforts. I just don't
have the time. And I've also come to believe that there are very few
(if any) fence-sitting observers that idly follow along the latter
parts of these threads hanging on the intricacies of nit-picking
debate. We also have scriptures to back-up the shunning profane and
vain babblings and to not engage in debate (Romans 1:29), which is
marked by argument between the saved and the others mentioned in
Romans 1:29.
-Ted
Ted L
Thanks. So what'd you think about it?
::: Jesus is LORD :::
3f9vj599bu00nvjkh...@4ax.com
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:34:35 -0800 (PST), Ted L
> <spamta...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>> On Jan 1, 7:14 pm, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>> 3) That you know you cannot disprove
>>> what I post, since if you could, then
>>> you most certainly would and silence
>>> me once and for all.
>>
>> Wrong again, false teacher.
>
> and your glaring approval of such a thing.
It is just what you have been doing, "Pastor", claiming that Israel is
lost, and that you have taken their place.
Dave, are you blind? Can you not read???
Why do you ignore almost a whole chapter of the Bible??? I can tell you,
it is because you are a false teacher. You may ignore the following, but
I hope the reader does not, and all see what a liar you are:
Romans 11:1-32 KJV
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an
Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
(2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what
the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against
Israel, saying, (3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down
thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. (4) But what
saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven
thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
(5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according
to the election of grace.
(6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no
more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise
work is no more work.
(7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but
the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (8) (According
as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that
they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
(9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a
stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: (10) Let their eyes be
darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
(11) I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for
to provoke them to jealousy.
(12) Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the
diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their
fulness? (13) For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle
of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: (14) If by any means I may
provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of
them. (15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the
world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
(16) For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the
root be holy, so are the branches.
(17) And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree;
(18) Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee.
(19) Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be
graffed in. (20) Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and
thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: (21) For if God
spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
(22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his
goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
(23) And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
(24) For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature,
and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much
more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their
own olive tree?
(25) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this
mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in
part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come
in.
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins.
(28) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as
touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
(29) For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. (30) For
as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy
through their unbelief: (31) Even so have these also now not believed,
that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
(32) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have
mercy upon all.
*+*^+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*^*+*
Again, Dave, read this form the verses above:
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall
come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: (27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins.
Now tell us why you think you know better than Paul!
--
___________________________________________________
http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de
http://the-beauty-of-the-psalms.blogspot.com
http://jesus-christ-is-my-lord-and-my-god.blogspot.com
http://bible-prophecy-and-revelation.blogspot.com/
::: Jesus is LORD :::
ncc1k51a3ok6oq3pl...@4ax.com
Dave's method is:
TEN STEPS HOW TO MAKE PRETERISTS FOR MY CULT:
1.) Try winning them over for the preterism nonsense.
2. Bombard them kindly and with an Angel's tongue with a lot of
sophisticated looking oversized articles on preterism or anything that
nobody could ever follow.
3.) If they have a point yet and refute you, accuse them of snipping
from those "sophisticated looking oversized articles that nobody could
ever follow or check out".
4.) If that does not help, accuse them of adding to those
"sophisticated looking oversized articles that nobody could ever follow
or check out".
5.) If that does not help, accuse them of lying about those
"sophisticated looking oversized articles that nobody could ever follow
or check out".
6.) If that does not help, call them names if they insist in refuting
your points of your "sophisticated looking oversized articles that
nobody could ever follow or check out".
7.) If that does not help, try threatening them to death. Some might run
away after that.
8.) If that does not help, block them if they can refute you.
9.) If they refute you, do not miss any chance to libel them as "evil"
or paint them as a monster by using any other way.
10.) ? [I have no idea, because I have not seen it yet. The rest can be
proved]
Ummm... phase 4-5... So better duck down, Bros. Ted, for he will soon
call you names.
::: Jesus is LORD :::
4b3e832e$0$22517$607e...@cv.net
> On 1/1/2010 12:43 PM, Ted L wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 11:34 am, " ::: Jesus is LORD :::"<jesus-is-l...@lycos.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the warning about the false teacher "Pastor Dave".
>>
>> And Happy new year Vera mine sister.
>
>
> That's a start
Eh? I must have missed that...
::: Jesus is LORD :::
ijn3k55k24uhjcojv...@4ax.com
That is exactly how he works. One can feel honored if blocked by this
false pastor. You must have written the truth, which he could not
refute.
>> Welcome back, Bear! You were missed. :-)
>>
> Thank you, although I bet Dave and perhaps some others would not share
> your sentiments.
Probably - but that is just an honor. If they accepted what we are
posting, we should really consider if we have not fallen away from the
truth! ;-)
>> A very Happy New Year 2010!
>>
> And to you as well.
>
> Bear
Thanks!
>> Jesus is Lord!
Ike E 1/2/2010
"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:usv4k55cgd1169mlr...@4ax.com...
Yeah, because there is about as much chance of that happening as a
Dispensationalist writing an accurate one, too.
Ike
bear
But, a much higher chance than Ike writting anything accurately, as
proven by his quotes below.
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles as demonstrated by his
quotes below.
[So, the INTERNAL DATA is STARTING TO LOOK LIKE IT DID BACK IN
SEPTEMBER, AND SHIFTING TO THE RIGHT AGAIN.]
or this one...
[Try looking at the INTERNAL data sometime--your "poll of polls" is
OVERINFLATED PUSH-POLLING CRAP.]
Now this is really indicative of Ike's version of the "truth".
[It's shaping up to be another GOP map.]
or this, has about the same value as his scripture commentary...
[Hey, idiot: HOW COME THE INTERNALS AREN'T MOVING BEYOND NORMAL
STATISTICAL ANOMALIES OF A POINT UP OR DOWN AS THE BATTLELINES
SOLIDIFY?]
right on mark again...
[WORSE, they subject to manipulation BY THE POLLSTERS THEMSELVES,
deliberately AND accidentally.]
[You MIGHT want to start paying attention TO THE BASIC POLLING,
Because IT MAY BE SAYING MORE THAN THE "PROFESSIONALS" DO.]
same dogmatic assertion as he makes with scripture, and just as wrong.
[And even THAT data is showing A MONUMENTAL SHIFT from OBAMA to
MCCAIN.]
yep, Ike has it all figured out...
[VoteFromAbroad.org IS ALREADY SHOWING MCCAIN TAKING THE LEAD, 270 to
268, with MORE SHIFTS TO COME from Washington, Michigan, and
Pennsylvania.]
how did everyone in the country miss this but Ike?
[EVEN NEW YORK STATE IS SHOWING A SHIFT TO THE GOP TICKET (and don't
be surprised if Giuliani Dems and the HUGE number of housewives in
up-state DON'T PUSH THE GOP WAY OVER THE TOP).]
[The rest of the electoral maps WILL SHORTLY FOLLOW SUIT.]
nothing wishy-washy about Ike's observations.
[By this time next week, the electoral college WILL SHOW THE SAME
REVERSAL AS IN THE GENERAL POLLING NUMBERS, with McCain have a HUGE
ADVANTAGE over Obama.]
same dogmatic, know it all tone as he has with scripture and the same
accuracy.
[This race is over--it ended last week.]
[Just like I told you last week concerning the general polling numbers
(and was right): WAIT FOR IT--it'll be along shortly.]
Ike provides a great demonstration of his analytical and interpreting
skills. He did come closer with the polls however than he does with
scripture.
Bear
bear
Ike E 1/2/2010
<yawn>
Once again, Bear has to divert attention away from his ignorance through
empty polemics.
[snippeth]
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Once again,
Ike provides an opportunity to show everyone his intellectual analysis
expertise with his quotes.
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the poles.
or this one...
right on mark again...
Bear
>
>Ike
>
Ike E 1/2/2010
...an opportunity for people to see Bear's hypocrisy, as he uses the same
tactics against others that he himself condemns in others, as when Bear
already knows he has lost the argument, he diverts to distractions to cover
his failed lies.
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
to show everyone his intellectual analysis expertise with his quotes.
Ike E 1/2/2010
...what a lying hypocrite Bear is.
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
an nalytical genius he is. Obviously, he really appreciates me making
his talents available to everyone.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> Now this surprises me. The guy has a PhD and makes
>> this absurd claim that *only* Dispensationalism "clearly
>> sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation?"
> You know exactly which context he said that in,
> but you thought that you would snip all of the
> context and pretend that it was just a general
> and a political statement.
Why don't you just admit that it is at the very least *misleading" to say
that *only* Dispensationalism sees a distinctive future for Israel? Why
don't you admit that there are nonDispensationalist futurists? Then you
won't be able to include all futurists in your arguments against
Dispensationalism. And that is the whole point for me.
>> I don't consider myself a Dispensationalist
> And yet, you are one.
No, I'm not. Dispensationalism is defined as adherance to a system in which
Israel and the Church are separated by eras. I do not believe in that.
Israel, like every other nation on earth, includes Christians. Most
importantly, I wish to be distinguished from Dispensationalism in its belief
in an "imminent" coming of Christ, "at any moment." I completely reject the
belief in pretribulationism, which is largely associated with Dispensational
teaching.
Otherwise, I think I can agree with much of what Dispensationalism has
taught, that there is a future for Israel. I do not believe that Israel is
still under covenant with God through the Law, and I'm not sure on what
basis Dispensationalists still believe Israel maintains its calling. Israel
does have a calling, but that calling is completed only with acceptance of
Christ. With that I'm sure I can agree with Dispensationalists.
randy
Ted L
wrote:
>
<grin>
> Ummm... phase 4-5... So better duck down, Bros. Ted, for he will soon
> call you names.
No worry sister V, I'm sure I've been called worse. :)
Ike E 1/2/2010
[snip]
An analytical genius is Ike...obviously.
Bear
bear
Poor little Ike, it seems that he is so starved for praise and
adulation that he is reduced to self accolades and then signing my
name to it, bless his little heart.
Ike thinks he is the smartest man who ever was, is now the smartest
man and will always be the smartest man, and he proves it with his
dogmatic assertions and analysis of the election poles.
Ike E 1/2/2010
Wow. I wish I was as well-informed as Ike.
Bear
bear
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
>Dear Pastor Dave,
>
>I just read your article on dispensationalism and thought that it was
>accurate and well-written. Thank you for this.
>
>With your permission I would like to consider reproducing it as a
>guest blog on The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.
>
>Would you be willing to do this?
I post a lot of stuff. Can you point me to exactly what
you're talking about, please? Thanks.
>
>Do you have any website or someplace where I could find some bio /
>ministry information about you personally to put with that.
>
>Thanks for considering it.
>
>Dave James
>
>The Alliance for Biblical Integrity
>www.biblicalintegrity.org
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Don't put a question mark where God put a period.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>>> Now this surprises me. The guy has a PhD and makes
>>> this absurd claim that *only* Dispensationalism "clearly
>>> sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation?"
>
>> You know exactly which context he said that in,
>> but you thought that you would snip all of the
>> context and pretend that it was just a general
>> and a political statement.
>
>Why don't you just admit that it is at the very least *misleading" to say
>that *only* Dispensationalism sees a distinctive future for Israel?
Dispensationalism = Dispensations
That's what you believe in. Ages that change settings.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:39:14 -0800 (PST), Dave James
><djame...@gmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>Dear Pastor Dave,
>>
>>I just read your article on dispensationalism and thought that it was
>>accurate and well-written. Thank you for this.
>>
>>With your permission I would like to consider reproducing it as a
>>guest blog on The Alliance for Biblical Integrity.
>>
>>Would you be willing to do this?
>
>I post a lot of stuff. Can you point me to exactly what
>you're talking about, please? Thanks.
>
Yep, he posts a lot of stuff, the problem is, most of it he cannot
prove and questions sends him running like a scalded dog with his tail
between his legs.
Bear
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>Why don't you just admit that it is at the very least *misleading" to say
>>that *only* Dispensationalism sees a distinctive future for Israel?
> Dispensationalism = Dispensations
> That's what you believe in. Ages that change settings.
Dispensationalism is defined as a theological system, and this involves more
than believe in changing ages.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
You can tell yourself whatever you want.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"A man is too apt to forget that in this world
he cannot have everything. A choice is all
that is left him." - H. Mathews
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:15:33 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave"
>>randy
>>>>Why don't you just admit that it is at the very least *misleading" to say
>>>>that *only* Dispensationalism sees a distinctive future for Israel?
>>
>>> Dispensationalism = Dispensations
>>> That's what you believe in. Ages that change settings.
>>
>>Dispensationalism is defined as a theological system, and this involves more
>>than believe in changing ages.
>>randy
>
>You can tell yourself whatever you want.
Sure, that is what Dave does, he tells himself often that "The last
days were in the first century". He cannot prove it, in fact, it is
nothing but a joke but he still tells himself.
Bear
Pastor Dave
What is Dispensationalism?
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
Introduction
Since the mid-1800s, the system of theology known
as Dispensationalism has exerted great influence on
how many Christians view the doctrines of ecclesiology
and eschatology. In this article, we will survey the
history of Dispensationalism and look at the key beliefs
associated with the system.
History of Dispensationalism
Theologians continue to argue over the origin of
Dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists argue
that the basic beliefs of Dispensationalism were held by the
apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not
Dispensationalists often argue that dispensationalism is a
new theology that began in the 19th century. What is clear,
though, is that Dispensationalism, as a system, began to
take shape in the mid-1800s.
1. John Nelson Darby - The beginning of systematized
Dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby
(1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at
Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe
in a future salvation and restoration of national Israel.
Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that
Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy Earthly
blessings that were different from the Heavenly blessings
experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction
between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe
in an �any moment� rapture of the church that was followed
by Daniel�s Seventieth Week in which Israel would once
again take center stage in God�s plan. After this period,
Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in
which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with
Israel [1]. According to Paul Enns, �Darby advanced
the scheme of Dispensationalism by noting that each
dispensation places man under some condition; man has
some responsibility before God. Darby also noted that
each dispensation culminates in failure.� [2]. Darby saw
seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood;
(2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles;
(6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own
testimony, Darby says his Dispensational theology
was fully formed by 1833.
2. The Brethren Movement Dispensationalism first took
shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century
Britain. Those within the Brethren Movement rejected a
special role for ordained clergy and stressed the spiritual
giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under
the Spirit�s guidance, to teach and admonish each other
from Scripture. The writings of the Brethren had a broad
impact on evangelical Protestantism and influenced ministers
in the United States such as D. L. Moody, James Brookes,
J. R. Graves, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield [3].
3. The Bible Conference Movement Beginning in the 1870s,
various Bible conferences began to spring up in various
parts of the United States. These conferences helped spread
Dispensationalism. The Niagara conferences (1870� early
1900s) were not started to promote Dispensationalism but
Dispensational ideas were often promoted at these
conferences. The American Bible and Prophetic Conferences
from 1878�1914 promoted a dispensational theology.
4. The Bible Institute Movement In the late 1800s, several
Bible institutes were founded that taught Dispensational
theology including The Nyack Bible Institute (1882),
The Boston Missionary Training School (1889), and
The Moody Bible Institute (1889).
5. The Scofield Reference Bible C. I. Scofield, a
participant in the Niagara conferences, formed a board of
Bible conference teachers in 1909 and produced what came
to be known as, the Scofield Reference Bible. This work
became famous in the United States with its theological
annotations right next to the Scripture. This reference
Bible became the greatest influence in the spread of
Dispensationalism.
6. Dallas Theological Seminary After World War I, many
Dispensational Bible schools were formed. Led by Dallas
Theological Seminary (1924), Dispensationalism began to
be promoted in formal, academic settings. Under Scofield,
Dispensationalism entered a scholastic period that was later
carried on by his successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer. Further
promotion of Dispensationalism took place with the writing
of Chafer�s eight-volume Systematic Theology.
Foundational Features of Dispensationalism [4]
1. Hermeneutical approach that stresses a literal
fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel though
the issue of �literal interpretation� is heavily debated
today, many Dispensationalists claim that consistent
literal interpretation applied to all areas of the Bible,
including Old Testament promises to Israel,
is a distinguishing mark of Dispensationalism.
Dispensationalists usually argue that the progress of
revelation, including New Testament revelation, does not
cancel Old Testament promises made with national Israel.
Although there is internal debate concerning how much
the church is related to the Old Testament covenants
and promises, Dispensationalists believe national Israel
will see the literal fulfillment of the promises made with
her in the Old Testament.
2. Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made
with national Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) must
be fulfilled literally with national Israel although the
church may participate in or partially fulfill the Biblical
covenants, they do not take over the covenants to the
exclusion of national Israel. Physical and spiritual
promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel.
3. Distinct future for national Israel �Only
Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for
ethnic Israel as a nation.� [5]. This future includes
a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity
and function.
4. The church is distinct from Israel. The church does
not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to
as Israel. According to Dispensationalists, the church
did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin
until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament
promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with
the church. Evidences often used by Dispensationalists
to show that the church is distinct from Israel include:
(a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18;
(b) an essential element of the church�Spirit baptism�
did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor
12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church
as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col.
1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated
with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were
not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the �new man�
nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church
is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel;
(f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the
New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20);
(g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct.
On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, �In the book of
Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously.
The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church)
nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept
distinct.� [6].
5. Multiple senses of �seed of Abraham�. According to
Feinberg, the designation �seed of Abraham� is used in
different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference
to ethnic, biological Jews (cf. Romans 9�11). Second,
it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a
spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile,
who are spiritually related to God by faith (cf. Romans
4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). Feinberg argues that the spiritual
sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to
such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no
longer related to the biblical covenants.
6. Philosophy of history that emphasizes both the spiritual
and physical aspects of God�s covenants According to John
Feinberg, �nondispensational treatments of the nature of
the covenants and of Israel�s future invariably emphasize
soteriological and spiritual issues, whereas dispensational
treatments emphasize both the spiritual/soteriological and
the social, economic, and political aspects of things.� [7].
Other significant, although not necessarily exclusive
features of Dispensationalism, include: (1) the authority
of Scripture; (2) belief in dispensations; (3) emphasis
on Bible prophecy; (4) futuristic premillennialism;
(5) pretribulationism; and (6) a view of imminency
that sees Christ�s return as an �any-moment� possibility.
Variations Within Dispensationalism
The above features characterize the beliefs of those within the
Dispensational tradition. However, as Blaising writes,
�Dispensationalism has not been a static tradition.� [8].
There is no standard creed that freezes its theological
development at any given point in history. Blaising
offers three forms of dispensational thought:
1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850�1940s)
Classical Dispensationalism refers to the views of British
and American Dispensationalists between the writings
of Darby and Chafer�s eight-volume Systematic Theology.
The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible
are often seen as the key representation of the classical
dispensational tradition [9].
One important feature of classical dispensationalism was
its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is
seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related
to Heaven and the other to the Earth. The �Heavenly
humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from
all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead.
Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had
not died but who were preserved by God from death, the
heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had
died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.� [10].
Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and
individualistic nature of the church in classical
Dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that
the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption
[11]. In this tradition, there was little emphasis on
social or political activity for the church.
Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield,
Lewis Sperry Chafer
2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950�1985)
Revised Dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism
of Heavenly and Earthly peoples. The emphasis in this
strand of the Dispensational tradition was on two peoples
of God�Israel and the church. These two groups are
structured differently with different dispensational roles
and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is
the same. The distinction between Israel and the church,
as different anthropological groups, will continue
throughout eternity.
Revised Dispensationalists usually reject the idea that
there are two new covenants�one for Israel and one for
the church. They also see the church and Israel as existing
together during the millennium and eternal state.
Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost,
Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.
3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986�present) What
does �progressive� mean? The title �progressive
Dispensationalism� refers to the �progressive� relationship
of the successive dispensations to one another [12].
Charles Ryrie notes that, �The adjective �progressive�
refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic,
and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today
(as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).�
[13].
�One of the striking differences between progressive and
earlier Dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view
the church as an anthropological category in the same class
as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile
people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity
(in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation
alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is
precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles)
as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of
Christ.� [14].
Progressive Dispensationalists see more continuity between
Israel and the church than the other two variations within
Dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the
church compose the �people of God� and both are related
to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual
equality, however, does not mean that there are not
functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive
Dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in
this age and they still see a future distinct identity and
function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom.
Progressive Dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see
an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ,
seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during
the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign
awaits Israel in the millennium.
Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock,
and Robert L. Saucy
[1] See Floyd Elmore, "Darby, John Nelson," Dictionary
of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, ed., (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1996) 83-84.
[2] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology
(Chicago: Moody, 1989) 516.
[3] See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive
Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 10.
[4] These essentials of Dispensationalism are taken from
John S. Feinberg's, "Systems of Discontinuity," Continuity
and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between
the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton:
Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the
well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth
by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism
is based on the three following characteristics:
(1) a distinction between Israel and the church;
(2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the
glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world.
See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1995) 38-40.
[5] Feinberg, 83.
[6] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link
in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel, 1994) 118.
[7] Feinberg, 85.
[8] Blaising and Bock, 21.
[9] Blaising and Bock, 22.
[10] Blaising and Bock, 24.
[11] Blaising and Bock, 27.
[12] Blaising and Bock, 49.
[13] Charles C. Ryrie, "Update on Dispensationalism",
Issues in Dispensationalism, John R. Master and Wesley
R. Willis, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 20.
[14] Blaising and Bock, 49.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled."
- Farmer's Advice
Van
while I was gone, Pasta. You also seem to still be under the same
wrong assumption that somebody cares.
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8kkjl5t0urmgproon...@4ax.com...
>
> What is Dispensationalism?
A school of prophetic interpretation almost as dumb as Preterism.
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
And yet, here you are, too cowardly to deal with
the issue and insulting me instead. But hey, you
don't "care" or anything, right Van? I mean those
who don't care would obviously spend their time
responding and attacking the person, right?
Gee, aren't you such a wonderful Christian, Van?!
I mean, you just tore my post apart with tons of
Scriptural proof!!!
Oh, no, wait, that's right! What you actually did
was start a new thread that had none of what
I posted and you simply attacked me with name
calling and false accusations.
But hey, thank you for showing me just how wrong
I must be, because being a true Christian who loves
God, obviously must consist of ignoring the issues
and attacking the person!
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
I do whatever the little voices tell me to do.
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:18:16 -0800 (PST), Van <eva...@gmail.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>> It would appear that you've become obsessed
>> with Dispensationalism while I was gone, Pasta.
>> You also seem to still be under the same wrong
>> assumption that somebody cares.
>
>And yet, here you are, too cowardly to deal with
>the issue and insulting me instead. But hey, you
>don't "care" or anything, right Van? I mean those
>who don't care would obviously spend their time
>responding and attacking the person, right?
>
Speaking of being "cowardly", at least he is not so gutless that he
does not have to "kill file" people so he can pretend they never asked
him questions that he could not answer. You know Dave, those that tuck
their tails between their legs and run like a scolded ape.
>Gee, aren't you such a wonderful Christian, Van?!
>
>I mean, you just tore my post apart with tons of
>Scriptural proof!!!
>
Well, that is not hard to do, all one has to do is ask Dave a few
questions.
>Oh, no, wait, that's right! What you actually did
>was start a new thread that had none of what
>I posted and you simply attacked me with name
>calling and false accusations.
>
Dave provides a perfect example of what he means.
Remember any of this "pastor"?
My very first post to this NG was this question�
"when did the battle of Ezekiel 38 & 39 occur and who were the
participants?"
And below are some of the profound answers that I received from the so
called "pastor". His quotes are enclosed in brackets ([])
[Actually, you asked, "If you lived back then...".]
This was his answer to my question, "when did the battle of Ezekiel 38
& 39 occur and who were the participants?" Very demonstrative of a
real "pastor".
[People do NOT have a right to believe whatever they want to! Not in
this area, since this is about God, not the laws of some country.]
[Agreed! Did I call you "stupid"? I don't recall saying that to you.
If I did, then I sincerely apologize, since you have done nothing to
offend me, nor insult me!]
***Please notice the admission by the "pastor" then look at his next
paragraph.***
[Sound stupid??? No less stupid that what you're saying! I'm sorry, I
truly am for that insult, but it is true! One can say any damn thing
they want to and claim it "could be". Ya know, now you're just acting
the idiot. I'm sorry, but you are!]
[In other words, you're not too bright. But if you're going to
respond, then expect that I'm not a moron, who is going to be lead
around by the nose, by a liar like you! Bottom line: You respond to
MY post, then respond ON POINT and stop trying to AVOID the points I
made and then lying about that simple fact!]
Provide a quote where I lied.
[Or, you can choose to ignore my posts altogether. Thus far, all you
have done, is lie and try to make me guilty of your sins!]
Provide a quote where I lied.
[Fact: You ignore what I post, ask a question and then when I ask you
why you ignored what I posted, you dishonestly and intentionally and
falsely claim that I am running away from your question, which was
nothing more than a diversion attempt on your part, to avoid what I
posted.]
Provide a quote of me claiming that you ran away.
[I am not going to forget this and it is not going to change, because
you're too stupid to realize that I'm not as stupid as you are.]
[See above, dipshit.]
[Do you practice at being this stupid? Or does it come naturally for
you?!]
[Now tells me, stupid ass, how does that fit into 21st century
warfare!]
[Now when, ass wipe, was the last time you saw an army in the 21st
century raiding a country for the purpose of taking their livestock,
dip shit!]
[Now tell us, dumb ass, since when have armies been using wooden
weapons?!]
[Now come on, little Dispy nut job! Tell us how it's going to happen,
AS IT IS DESCRIBED, which is what you required!]
[You are an idiot! And you're so brainwashed by your foolish
doctrine, that you can't even see reason and logic! And besides this,
as I said, your stupid, moronic question was nothing more than a
diversion tactic, to try to avoid every damn fact I posted here!]
My question was, "when did the battle described in Ezekiel 38 & 39
take place?"
[But go ahead and tell us how "this means that" and the cities now
have different names, but then make sure to demand again, that I show
you where it happened, AS DESCRIBED, while ignoring that rule for
yourself, you lying sack of crap!]
[But hey, I'll send them again, you cowardly little hypocrite! Then
you can keep running away, while demanding that I believe they're
going to be physically, literally fulfilled today!]
[You asked... "When did the battle of Ezekiel 38 & 39 occur and who
were the participants?" and claimed that it was "To understand the
Preterist view", which was a damn lie, since you rail against it every
chance you get, you liar!]
[And yet, when you ran away from these questions, what did you do, you
lying little cowardly boy?! Why, you went to a web site, where they
would stroke your ego and feigned that you were posting the same
question "to try to better understand the Preterist position" and
claimed that you just couldn't get an answer to your question!]
Every statement made in the above paragraph is false.
[Your question was bullshit and you know it! And you ran away like a
little girl, when I exposed the fact that your "question" and your
demand was asked when you responded to a post I sent, to which you
responded to, by snipping almost everything I said and then making
your demand! And when I said something, you tried to deny it, as if
doing so, would make my message disappear from usenet!]
[Let me tell you something about *YOU* that *IS* literal...
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E !]
[There's more!... I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T T-O S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E !]
[Oh yea! There's also at least one more!... L-I-A-R !]
[I am the one who gets to ask you questions, since you are the one who
responded by trying to avoid my post and change the subject! I am not
required to answer the questions of a dishonest person, who knows that
they can't deal with the original post and therefore, tries to get out
of it by changing the subject!]
Where is your evidence that would prove that I am dishonest, your word
is not good enough.
My very first post to this group was asking the question about the
battle in Ezekiel.
[And why is it that you claim it's all literal and insult me for not
taking it all as being physically literal and yet, in Rev 19, you
claim that Jesus literally rides a horse down from Heaven, but then
claim that the sword sticking out of His mouth while He's doing that
is symbolic for the word of God?! Do I smell hypocrisy? OF COURSE I
DO, BECAUSE YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE!!! ]
The above accusations are completely false. The "pastor" cannot prove
one accusation that he made, again proving him to be a liar that he
brags about no one ever proving that he is guilty of.
And he pretends to be a "pastor"????
>But hey, thank you for showing me just how wrong
>I must be, because being a true Christian who loves
>God, obviously must consist of ignoring the issues
>and attacking the person!
Like the dozens of questions that I have asked Dave and he ignores.
Bear
Thommadura
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:18:16 -0800 (PST), Van<eva...@gmail.com>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>> It would appear that you've become obsessed
>> with Dispensationalism while I was gone, Pasta.
>> You also seem to still be under the same wrong
>> assumption that somebody cares.
>
> And yet, here you are, too cowardly to deal with
> the issue and insulting me instead. But hey, you
> don't "care" or anything, right Van? I mean those
> who don't care would obviously spend their time
> responding and attacking the person, right?
>
> Gee, aren't you such a wonderful Christian, Van?!
>
> I mean, you just tore my post apart with tons of
> Scriptural proof!!!
>
> Oh, no, wait, that's right! What you actually did
> was start a new thread that had none of what
> I posted and you simply attacked me with name
> calling and false accusations.
>
> But hey, thank you for showing me just how wrong
> I must be, because being a true Christian who loves
> God, obviously must consist of ignoring the issues
> and attacking the person!
>
SInce that is what YOU do to non-christians - and christians that do not
agree with YOU - what is so different this time - DAVE?
IT is always fun to watch the christians argue over who is correct about
anything - when NONE of them can prove they are.
And since scripture is subject to interpretation - and nitpicking - and
failure to consider other things in scripture - you can make almost ANY
point you want to and back it up with "scripture".
Fact is - Andrew chung is as provable as Monkfish - is as provable as
duke - or michael (or whatever that new name he is using is) - or all
the rest.
Christianity - the only religion that can be SUPPORTED to be just what
YOU define it to be - except one thing - proven truth!
Thommadura
>
> "when did the battle of Ezekiel 38& 39 occur and who were the
> take place?"
>
> [But go ahead and tell us how "this means that" and the cities now
> have different names, but then make sure to demand again, that I show
> you where it happened, AS DESCRIBED, while ignoring that rule for
> yourself, you lying sack of crap!]
>
> [But hey, I'll send them again, you cowardly little hypocrite! Then
> you can keep running away, while demanding that I believe they're
> going to be physically, literally fulfilled today!]
>
He is as much a pastor as YOU are a "bear".
Since the bible is not proven truth - all either of you have is belief.
So while dave might claim to know it all - he actually has no proof of
anything he says. OF course - the same applies to YOU
glenn
I have exchanged enough posts with "Pastor" Dave to identify the
originality of your posts and responses from Dave...
...And, while it's certainly interesting reading...
...and although it will, unfortunately, do nothing to save Dave from his
delusions and insanity,
...Yet it will hopefully save some other poster an insight to Dave's
delusions and false doctrine...
Thanks, Bear.
--
Glenn
.
WAR! Thou son of hell! Shakespeare
.
A bad peace is worse than war. Tacitus
.
By peace he shall destroy many. Daniel
.
bear
wrote:
>> My very first post to this NG was this question�
That is the primary reason that I respond the way I do to Dave and
Doug. Just in case someone who only occasionally visits the group, as
I once did, perhaps it will cause them to not accept what these two
say without checking for themselves first.
You and I have I differences Glenn, but at least we can agree on this
issue, eh?
Bear
>
>Thanks, Bear.
glenn
Yes, Bear, we do have our differences...
But I once heard a saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend,.."
I think that works as long as my friend is defending me from my enemy :-)
Glenn
bear
wrote:
>>>> My very first post to this NG was this question�
Works for me.
Bear
>Glenn
Van
And yet, here you are, too cowardly to deal with
the issue and insulting me instead. But hey, you
don't "care" or anything, right Van? I mean those
who don't care would obviously spend their time
responding and attacking the person, right?
Gee, aren't you such a wonderful Christian, Van?!
I mean, you just tore my post apart with tons of
Scriptural proof!!!
Oh, no, wait, that's right! What you actually did
was start a new thread that had none of what
I posted and you simply attacked me with name
calling and false accusations.
But hey, thank you for showing me just how wrong
I must be, because being a true Christian who loves
God, obviously must consist of ignoring the issues
and attacking the person!
Van:
"Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself."
Does the word Hypocrite ring any bells, Pasta? You attack me for being
a bad christian, yet we've had plenty of conversations where you've
accused me of associations with the Devil (without my knowledge, thank
god) Simply because I disagreed with your point of view. You've
conducted yourself in a much less than Christ-like way to me and
others and yet you insist that I do what you fail to do time and time
again? No sir. I simply "ignored the issues" (its not an issue, its
your new found spam obsession). But why did I "ignore the issues"?
Why? Well the answer is much simpler than you think Pasta. Its not
because I dont understand them. Its not because I choose to ignore
them. Its very simple. I simply do not care enough. You also accused
me of "name calling and false accusations" The only thing I accused
you of was boring me and being a false pastor. But to be false, the
statement must not be true (DUH). You DO bore me and you ARE a false
Pastor. Therefore my statements were true. And the only name I called
you was "Pasta" which I dont think is terribly offensive, if you want
me to call you Pastor, that wont happen mate. That would be like me
demanding that you call me "Van, the lord and ruler of the Universe"
Which Im not.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>Fake Pastor:
>And yet, here you are, too cowardly to deal with
>the issue and insulting me instead. But hey, you
>don't "care" or anything, right Van? I mean those
>who don't care would obviously spend their time
>responding and attacking the person, right?
>Gee, aren't you such a wonderful Christian, Van?!
>I mean, you just tore my post apart with tons of
>Scriptural proof!!!
>Oh, no, wait, that's right! What you actually did
>was start a new thread that had none of what
>I posted and you simply attacked me with name
>calling and false accusations.
>But hey, thank you for showing me just how wrong
>I must be, because being a true Christian who loves
>God, obviously must consist of ignoring the issues
>and attacking the person!
>
>Van:
>"Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself."
>Does the word Hypocrite ring any bells, Pasta?
And yet, judging me is exactly what you did.
You came into this thread and attacked me.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If then, these teachings [of a false prophet]
contradict the chief doctrine and article of Christ,
we should accord them neither with attention nor
acceptance though it were to snow miracles daily."
- Martin Luther