@ All Jews Will Be Saved? Paul Didn't Say That!
Pastor Dave
People quote Romans 11, claiming that Paul said that
all national Jews will be saved. And this makes some
stray, saying that can't be right! And they are right!
It doesn't make sense and they are smart enough to know
that Hebrews disproves that idea totally!
But the problem here is, that they have (no offense folks)
been brainwashed into thinking that's what Paul said, by
the Dispensationalists!
But hey folks, if you know the Dispy's are wrong about this
(and they are indeed very, very wrong about this), then why
hasn't it occurred to you that maybe they are wrong about
what Paul said?! I mean after all, who was it that told you
that he said that?! Wasn't it the Dispy's?!
Now I know you read it and IT SEEMS to say that, but that's
because you have been so brainwashed (again, no offense)
into reading it that way!
Please read it again and remember, it doesn't say,
"and then". It says, "and so"! And this is a BIG,
BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE!!!
You see, "and then" states a time line. But "and so" states
a method! And if you look it up in the Greek, the words
"and so" mean, "and in this manner".
In other words, it isn't that some Jews get saved AND THEN
"the fullness of the Gentiles" AND THEN God goes back and
saves all Jews!
Rather, it is that some Jews are saved AND THEN it is
"the fullness of the Gentiles" (whatever that number was)
"AND SO".. I.E., "AND IN THIS MANNER", all Israel is
saved! So in other words, "Israel" is THE CHURCH!
And the church will consist of Jews and Gentiles
("for there is neither Jew, nor Gentile, for all are one
in Christ Jesus")!
So we have:
1) Some Jews saved.
2) The fullness of the Gentiles saved.
This means that "all Israel" has been saved,
because Israel is the body; the church!
Ask yourself... Who was Paul writing to here?
Non-believers? I don't think so! It was the church!
Galatians 6:15-16
15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a
new creation.
16) And as many as walk according to this rule,
peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the
Israel of God.
Now read Romans 11:25-26a! Now I know that
the Dispy's will try to quote a couple of verses
after this, but that is because they love to pit
Scripture against Scripture, as if what I posted
can't be true, because gee, look at what this one
says! Oh and gee, they say, the Bible does not
contradict itself! Hypocrites! It never occurs to
them that Paul also talking about national Israel
in other verses, does not mean that he is in
these verses! Duh!!! And why do they ignore
what I posted, to try to pit the Bible against itself?!
Again, please, read it with the original Greek that
says, "and so" ("and in this manner") in mind as
you read it! :)
Romans 11:25-26a
25) For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in
your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened
to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26a) AND SO all Israel will be saved.
Now this also shows, that it was never about some,
"end of time", as the Futurists claim! In fact, I defy
anyone to quote me where the Bible says, "end of time"!
It cannot be found in the Bible, period, end of story!
And now, let the Futurist Scripture and word twisting
begin, since I know they can't stand it when the facts
don't fit their doctrine and I know that they must
protect their doctrine at all costs, even to the point of
filtering Scripture through their doctrine, rejecting
common sense and the rules of language, demanding
that I count their obviously deceptive work-a-rounds
as the "real rules"! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
If your Bible is falling apart, chances are
your life is staying together.
Pastor Dave
So we have:
Galatians 6:15-16
Romans 11:25-26a
--
Pastor Dave
"The face is the mirror of the mind and eyes without speaking
confess the secrets of the heart." -Saint Jerome
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> People quote Romans 11, claiming that Paul said that
> all national Jews will be saved. And this makes some
> stray, saying that can't be right! And they are right!
> It doesn't make sense and they are smart enough to know
> that Hebrews disproves that idea totally!
> But the problem here is, that they have (no offense folks)
> been brainwashed into thinking that's what Paul said, by
> the Dispensationalists!
I am not a Dispensationalist. I'm a Futurist. And I agree that this passage
in Romans 11 can be terribly misunderstood. Some people think that when Paul
said "and so all Israel will be saved" he was suggesting that some kind of
universalistic salvation would take place in Israel, that literally *every
individual* would be saved in Israel.
But I and probably most informed Christians would understand that Paul did
not intend to speak of "universal salvation" in Israel. Words must be
understood *in context.* Paul was specifically referring to the salvaiton of
a duly-constituted nation, which would cease to exist at the point where the
people went into exile. What Paul was saying was that God intended to save
not just Jews in exile, but more, the nation as a fully-reconstituted
entity. It was the *whole nation* that was to be saved, and not *every
individual* in that nation.
What Paul refers to is the salvation of "all Israel"--not the salvation of
every Jew. We might think of it as a protest against saving only half the
nation. For example, it was not just the southern part of Israel that would
be saved, but the *whole* nation, north, south, east and west, including all
that the Bible had defined as Israel's inheritance.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>
>> People quote Romans 11, claiming that Paul said that
>> all national Jews will be saved. And this makes some
>> stray, saying that can't be right! And they are right!
>> It doesn't make sense and they are smart enough to know
>> that Hebrews disproves that idea totally!
>> But the problem here is, that they have (no offense folks)
>> been brainwashed into thinking that's what Paul said, by
>> the Dispensationalists!
>
> I am not a Dispensationalist.
Yes you are. You believe in a third temple
and in the 1,000 year reign of Christ, etc..
Those are "dispensations", which is what
it means to be a "Dispensationalist".
> I'm a Futurist. And I agree that this passage
> in Romans 11 can be terribly misunderstood.
> Some people think that when Paul said "and
> so all Israel will be saved" he was suggesting
> that some kind of universalistic salvation would
> take place in Israel, that literally *every individual*
> would be saved in Israel.
>
> But I and probably most informed Christians
> would understand that Paul did not intend to
> speak of "universal salvation" in Israel.
Actually, I applaud that you don't think that,
but you are wrong, in that most Christians do.
Furthermore, you do think that there will be
some kind of "going back to national Israel
to save Jews" and that is contrary to what
Paul said, as I showed, which you snipped,
because you wanted to pretend that what
I said was only against all individual Jews
being saved and that I was arguing that
just Israel as a nation in general would
be saved, when that isn't what I said at all
and that makes you, as always, dishonest.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"We are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others,
that in the end we become disguised to ourselves."
- Francois de La Rochefoucauld
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I am not a Dispensationalist.
> Yes you are. You believe in a third temple
> and in the 1,000 year reign of Christ, etc..
> Those are "dispensations", which is what
> it means to be a "Dispensationalist".
I do believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ, but no, I don't believe
in a "third temple." I think some elements of Dispensationalism are true,
including the future salvation of national Israel. But I do not hold to
everything that most Dispensationalists believe, such as a pretribulational
rapture of the Church.
>> But I and probably most informed Christians
>> would understand that Paul did not intend to
>> speak of "universal salvation" in Israel.
> Actually, I applaud that you don't think that,
> but you are wrong, in that most Christians do.
I really don't know what most Christians believe about this. I'd be curious
to know. That's why I don't consider myself a Dispensationalist. I don't
believe that the nation Israel is in any different a place than any other
nation on earth. They can be either a Christian nation or a Jewish nation.
They can include Christian citizens, or they may try to exclude them. It's
just that I believe one day Christ will come back and turn Israel into a
Christian nation. At that point I still think there will be sinners and
unbelievers included in the nation, just as Christian nations in the past
have included many reprobates and devotees to other faiths.
> Furthermore, you do think that there will be
> some kind of "going back to national Israel
> to save Jews" and that is contrary to what
> Paul said, as I showed, which you snipped,
> because you wanted to pretend that what
> I said was only against all individual Jews
> being saved and that I was arguing that
> just Israel as a nation in general would
> be saved, when that isn't what I said at all
> and that makes you, as always, dishonest.
Not at all. I did not at all mean to insinuate that you're against the
salvation of Jewish individuals! Why would a "pastor" be opposed to the
salvation of *anybody?*
Rather, I'm trying to point out that the salvation of the *whole nation*
refers not to the salvation of every Jew in Israel, but rather, to the
salvation of an entire self-sufficient country, with all of the political
organization and economic control that requires. It really means that the
nation will become a *Christian* nation. And yes, I do think this is what
Paul predicted will happen in the future. I don't see how it can be
interpreted in any other way?
randy
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:29njj5ppdvnt02mlg...@4ax.com...
>
> People quote Romans 11, claiming that Paul said that
> all national Jews will be saved. And this makes some
> stray, saying that can't be right! And they are right!
> It doesn't make sense and they are smart enough to know
> that Hebrews disproves that idea totally!
LOL
"Hebrews" was written as a direct assault on John's "Revelation" to turn
Christian eschatology and theology into Essene/Gnostic eschatology and
theology (as the author was probably an Ebionite, which was a Jewish
"Christian" sect that seemed to have derived its doctrines from the earlier
apocalyptic cults).
Watch...
Revelation/Hebrews parallels.
On the surface, it looks like the author of Hebrews is supporting John's
Revelation. But note that the author hardly EVER quotes John word for word.
And, as we'll find in a moment, the author of Hebrews insidiously changes
John's Revelation...
1) "But call to remembrance the former days, in which after ye were
illuminated ye endured a great fight of afflictions" (Heb.10:32) compared to
"Remember from whence thou art fallen...will remove thy lampstands
(illumination) ....I know thy works and thy labour" (Rev 2:1-7).
2) "God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love, which ye showed
towards his name" (Heb.6:10) compared to "I know thy works and thy labour
and thy patience" (Rev 2:2).
3) "...that ye wax not weary fainting in your souls" (Heb.12:3) compared to
"...and hast borne, and hast patience and for my names sake hast laboured
and hast not fainted" (Rev 2:3).
4) "That no man fall after the same example of disobedience" (Heb.4:11)
compared to "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen" (Rev 2:5).
5) ".how much more shall we not escape, who turn away from him that warneth
from heaven"(Heb.12:26) compared to the fact that Revelation is the only
message from Jesus spoken from heaven to the churches.
6) "And this word, yet once more signifieth the removing of those things
that are shaken" (Heb.12: 27) compared to "I will remove thy lampstand.."
(Rev 2:5, in terms of the Spirit's gifts & dependence on the Temple).
7) The word of God (Heb 4:12) compared to The word of God (Rev 19:13). (Only
John ever directly used the term "the Word of God" as a Name for Jesus.)
8) .."is sharper than a two-edged sword" (Heb 4:12) compared to "with a
sharp two-edged sword (Rev 1:16; 19:15).
9) "The city which hath (the: RV) foundations, whose builder and maker is
God" (Heb 11:10) compared to "The wall of the city (of God) had 12
foundations" (Rev 21:14).
And this whole sequence from Hebrews chapter 12:
10) "Mount Zion" compared to "The Lamb on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1)."
11) "Heavenly Jerusalem" compared to "New Jerusalem" out of heaven (Rev
21:2).
12) "The city of the living God" compared to "The God of the living
creatures" (Rev 4:6).
13) "An innumerable company of angels" compared to "The voice of many
angels" (Rev 5:11).
14) "The general assembly" compared to "The 144,000 sealed out of Israel"
(Rev ch.7&14).
15) "Written in heaven" compared to "Written in the Lamb's book of life"
(Rev 13:8; 21:27).
16) "God the judge of all" compared to "The dead standing before God to be
judged" (Rev 20:12).
17) "Jesus the mediator of a new covenant" compared to "A Lamb as it had
been slain" (Rev 5:5, 6).
18) "The blood of sprinkling" compared to "Thou hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood" (Rev 5:9).
19) "Let us serve God" compared to "They serve him day and night in his
Temple" (7:15)
That's 19 paraphrases of Revelation statements in Hebrews, but not ONE
MENTION of the source, and hardly a direct quote in the bunch.
WHY?
First, it tells us that Hebrews was written AFTER JOHN WROTE REVELATION,
sometime in the second century.
But WHY doesn't the author acknowledge John, and why does he keep CHANGING
John's statements?
Simple: the author is SPECIFICALLY REVERSING REVELATION THEOLOGY and
ESCHATOLOGY (and, likewise, Gospel and Epistle theology) into ESSENE/GNOSTIC
theology and eschatology.
1) The author of Hebrews draws a distinction between man and angel that
neither Jesus, Paul, nor John drew. In fact, one of the functions of
Revelation is to CONNECT man to angel (and subsequently, demons) through the
"star = angel = ministers of the Word" trichotomy. This is specifically
clarified when the last angel of the Bible DECLARES that he was 1) a
fellowservant, 2) a brother in tribulation, and 3) of those who kept the
sayings of the book, i.e. A MARTYR. In other words, he was a MAN before he
was an "angel."
Who taught a distinction between man and angel, right down to their
creation?
The Essenes "Sons of Light" cult.
Hmmmmm.
2) The author of Hebrews teaches REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, saying that the Old
Testament is "passed away," when Jesus, Paul, and John specifically said
otherwise.
Jesus SAID the all the law and the prophets would stand until the end of
heaven and earth.
Paul said, in terms of Israel as it was, wrote "for the gifts and callings
of God are WITHOUT REPENTANCE. Paul ALSO said that the law would be the
basis for the judgment of the world.
John taught dualism in a coming Remnant that will "keep the commandments of
God AND have the faith of Jesus" that will arise in the End of the Age. (Ah,
but the author of Hebrews REMOVES the 144,000 from his story.)
THIS is a BIGGIE.
Who taught that Judaism had passed away, and only they were the "true
remnant" of the old Israel?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
3) The author of Hebrews changes the concept of a COVENANT (i.e. a TWO-PARTY
AGREEMENT) into the concept of A WILL (i.e. a one-party agreement). A
Covenant is binding on both parties, and both parties have responsibilities
in a Covenant. A will is only binding on one party, and only one party has
any responsibilities.
Haven't quite figured out how this one fits into the Essene picture.
Hmmmmm.
4) The author of Hebrews SKIPS the Millennium and jumps to the End of the
World, whereas Jesus, Paul, and John all treated the End of the Age and the
End of the World as TWO SEPARATE EVENTS (filled by the "happy kingdom"
prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah et al).
Who taught the imminent "End of the World" war between the righteous and
wicked, the angels and demons, and God and Satan?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
5) Hebrews teaches the traditional seven-literal-days-past creation account
[ch 4], but John's Revelation says that creation is still ongoing (i.e. "for
you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were
created"), which means the seven days of creation are Macrocosmic (creation
days), not Microcosmic (literal days).
Who was an ultra-tradition faction of Judaism that taught strict biblical
literalism?
The Essenes.
Hmmmmm.
6) Hebrews 6 & 12 speaks of striving for perfection in the flesh by works
and laws, which was Asceticism, i.e. the concept that we are saved for sins
past by the Gospel (or, in the case of the Essenes, ritual baptism and
cleansing), but NOT sins future.
There's those Essenes again.
Hmmmmm.
********
Now, there are many good observations in Hebrews, but someone was playing it
fast and loose with their eschatological and theological claims, and it is
especially disturbing that whoever the author insinuated that he was Paul,
and copied from Paul's writings, too, when Paul was martyred before the
temple was destroyed, and Revelation was written soon afterward, with this
book coming up a distant third.
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> I am not a Dispensationalist.
>
>> Yes you are. You believe in a third temple
>> and in the 1,000 year reign of Christ, etc..
>> Those are "dispensations", which is what
>> it means to be a "Dispensationalist".
>
> I do believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ
Which makes you a Dispy.
> but no, I don't believe in a "third temple."
And so, where does He sit while He reigns?
>>> But I and probably most informed Christians
>>> would understand that Paul did not intend to
>>> speak of "universal salvation" in Israel.
>
>> Actually, I applaud that you don't think that,
>> but you are wrong, in that most Christians do.
>
> I really don't know what most Christians believe
> about this.
That's a load of crap.
>> Furthermore, you do think that there will be
>> some kind of "going back to national Israel
>> to save Jews" and that is contrary to what
>> Paul said, as I showed, which you snipped,
>> because you wanted to pretend that what
>> I said was only against all individual Jews
>> being saved and that I was arguing that
>> just Israel as a nation in general would
>> be saved, when that isn't what I said at all
>> and that makes you, as always, dishonest.
>
> Not at all.
Yes you do and you said so.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Finally, let us not forget the religious character
of our nation, because if that is forgotten,
everything else will collapse and we will have
the kind of immorality sweeping across this nation
today, like a vile flood, that we see on every side.
Every kind of vice and sin imaginable. Our fathers
were brought hither, by their veneration for the
Christian religion. They journeyed in its light
and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate
its principles, with the elements of their society.
And to diffuse its influence, through all their
institutions, civil, political, or literary. Let us
cherish these sentiments and extend their influence
still more widely, in the full conviction that it
is the happiest society which partakes in the highest
degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of Christianity."
- Daniel Webster, Patriot, Senator
vince garcia
>
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
> >> I am not a Dispensationalist.
>
> > Yes you are. You believe in a third temple
> > and in the 1,000 year reign of Christ, etc..
> > Those are "dispensations", which is what
> > it means to be a "Dispensationalist".
>
> I do believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ, but no, I don't believe
> in a "third temple." I think some elements of Dispensationalism are true,
> including the future salvation of national Israel. But I do not hold to
> everything that most Dispensationalists believe, such as a pretribulational
> rapture of the Church.
>
> >> But I and probably most informed Christians
> >> would understand that Paul did not intend to
> >> speak of "universal salvation" in Israel.
>
> > Actually, I applaud that you don't think that,
> > but you are wrong, in that most Christians do.
>
> I really don't know what most Christians believe about this. I'd be curious
> to know.
I see that verse as indeed talking about "universal salvation" of
israel. I can't see how it could not, and i don;'t say that because i
have an agenda that requires it. The whole context of the chapter is to
deny replacement theology, and from verse 1, repeatedly talks about the
theme of saving physical israel:
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.
That should end the debate right there
For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of
Benjamin.
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?
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?
Now go to the verse in question that some say MUST mean "and in this
manner"
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:
well...just look at the theme of the chapter and the second part of the
sentence: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
That's not talking about the gentiles! "Jacob" is the Jews! To call the
gentiles "jacob" or "zion" in the context of this chapter is ridiculous.
The whole point of the chapter is to reject the notion that God is only
reaching out to the gentiles, and regular israel is permanently rejected
but for a small remnant:
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.
So there is a FUTURE mercy physical israel will obtain. I don't know
that requires 100% of the nation miraculously be saved, but it certainly
could mean that. And I think at minimum it speaks of a massive divine
revival amongst the jews, with the overwhelming majority--if not all of
them left alive--embracing the gospel
Now I'm not a greek scholar, so I'm not qualified to challenge a greek
scholar who renders the verse "AND IN THIS MANNER" and says it MUST be
ubnderstood that way. But I'll quote the good traditional JFB commentary
on this issue for their view, along with some others as some food for
thought.
26, 27. And so all Israel shall be saved--To understand this great
statement, as some still do, merely of such a gradual inbringing of
individual Jews, that there shall at length remain none in unbelief, is
to do manifest violence both to it and to the whole context. It can only
mean the ultimate ingathering of Israel as a nation, in contrast with
the present "remnant." (So THOLUCK, MEYER, DE WETTE, PHILIPPI, ALFORD,
HODGE). Three confirmations of this now follow: two from the prophets,
and a third from the Abrahamic covenant itself. First, as it is written,
There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and
shall--or, according to what seems the true reading, without the
"and"--"He shall"
turn away ungodliness from Jacob--The apostle, having drawn his
illustrations of man's sinfulness chiefly from Psalms 14:1-7 and Isaiah
59:1-21 , now seems to combine the language of the same two places
regarding Israel's salvation from it [BENGEL]. In the one place the
Psalmist longs to see the "salvation of Israel coming out of Zion" (
Psalms 14:7 ); in the other, the prophet announces that "the Redeemer
(or, 'Deliverer') shall come to (or 'for') Zion" ( Isaiah 59:20 ). But
as all the glorious manifestations of Israel's God were regarded as
issuing out of Zion, as the seat of His manifested glory ( Psalms 20:2 ,
110:2 , Isaiah 31:9 ), the turn which the apostle gives to the words
merely adds to them that familiar idea. And whereas the prophet
announces that He "shall come to (or, 'for') them that turn from
transgression in Jacob," while the apostle makes Him say that He shall
come "to turn away ungodliness from Jacob," this is taken from the
Septuagint version, and seems to indicate a different reading of the
original text. The sense, however, is substantially the same in both.
Second,
27. For--rather, "and" (again); introducing a new quotation.
this is my covenant with them--literally, "this is the covenant from me
unto them."
when I shall take away their sins--This, we believe, is rather a brief
summary of Jeremiah 31:31-34 than the express words of any prediction,
Those who believe that there are no predictions regarding the literal
Israel in the Old Testament, that stretch beyond the end of the Jewish
economy, are obliged to view these quotations by the apostle as mere
adaptations of Old Testament language to express his own predictions
[ALEXANDER on Isaiah, &c.]. But how forced this is, we shall presently
see.
ADAM CLARKE COMMENTARY
Until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And this blindness will continue till the Church of the Gentiles be
fully completed-till the Gospel be preached through all the nations of
the earth, and multitudes of heathens every where embrace the faith. The
words πληρωματωνεθνων may be borrowed from the melo
haggoyim, a multitude of nations, which the Septuagint translate by
πληθοςεθνων. By the πληρωμα, or fulness, a great
multitude may be intended, which should be so dilated on every hand as
to fill various regions. In this sense the words were understood by
Solomon ben Melec,. The nations of the Gentiles shall be filled with
them: the apostle, therefore, seems to give this sense of the
mystery-that the Jews will continue in a state of blindness till such
time as a multitude of nations, or Gentiles, shall be converted to the
Christian faith; and the Jews, hearing of this, shall be excited, by a
spirit o� emulation, to examine and acknowledge the validity of the
proofs of Christianity, and embrace the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.
BARNES COMMENTARY (who does view vs 26 as IN THIS MANNER)
Verse 26. And so. That is, in this manner; or when the great abundance
of the Gentiles shall be converted, then all Israel shall be saved.
All Israel. All the Jews. It was a maxim among the Jews, that "every
Israelite should have part in the future age." (Grotius.) The apostle
applies that maxim to his own purpose; and declares the sense in which
it would be true. He does not mean to say that every Jew of every age
would be saved; for he had proved that a large portion of them would be,
in his time, rejected and lost. But the time would come when, as a
people, they would be recovered; when the nation would turn to God; and
when it could be said of them, that, as a nation, they were restored to
the Divine favour. It is not clear that he means that even then every
individual of them would be saved, but the body of them; the great mass
of the nation would be. Nor is it said when this would be. This is one
of the things which "the Father hath put in his own power," Acts 1:7. He
has given us the assurance that it shall be done to encourage us in our
efforts to save them; and he has concealed the time when it shall be,
lest we should relax our efforts, or feel that no exertions were needed
to accomplish what must take place at a fixed time.
Shall be saved. Shall be recovered from their rejection; be restored to
the Divine favour; become followers of the Messiah, and thus be saved as
all other Christians are.
David Guzik commentary
f. All Israel will be saved: This does not mean there will be a time
when every last person of Jewish descent will be saved. Instead, this is
a time when Israel as a whole will be a saved people, and when the
nation as a whole (especially its leadership) embraces Jesus Christ as
Messiah.
i. Even as the apostasy of Israel did not extend to every last Jew, so
the salvation of Israel will not extend to every last Jew; Paul is speak
of the "mass" of Jews when he says all Israel. "All Israel is a
recurring expression in Jewish literature, where it need not mean 'every
Jew without a single exception', but 'Israel as a whole.' "
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>>>> But I and probably most informed Christians
>>>> would understand that Paul did not intend to
>>>> speak of "universal salvation" in Israel.
>>>
>>> Actually, I applaud that you don't think that,
>>> but you are wrong, in that most Christians do.
>>
>> I really don't know what most Christians
>> believe about this. I'd be curious to know.
>
> I see that verse as indeed talking about
> "universal salvation" of Israel. I can't see
> how it could not
People quote Romans 11, claiming that Paul said that
all national Jews will be saved. And this makes some
stray, saying that can't be right. And they are right.
It doesn't make sense and they are smart enough
to know that Hebrews disproves that idea totally,
as does Romans 9:27.
But the problem here is, that they have (no offense folks)
been brainwashed into thinking that's what Paul said, by
the Dispensationalists.
Let's take a look at both sections in Romans:
In the following, Paul writes about how the prophet
Isaiah prophesied about what was going on in Paul's
time (I know Futurists/Dispy's think it has yet to happen).
Note that he says that only A REMNANT will be saved:
"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the
number of the children of Israel be as the sand
of the sea, a remnant shall be saved." - Rom 9:27
So now, when we read about it, if we say that
it would be anything more than a remnant,
then we are pitting Scripture against itself,
plain and simple and there is no escaping that!
Please read Romans 11:25-26 again and remember,
it doesn't say, "and then". That would indeed state
a time line and then it would indeed read the way
that you read it (which would also by default though,
mean that Paul contradicted himself). But it does not
say that! It says, "and so". And this is a BIG, BIG,
BIG DIFFERENCE!!! :) Sometimes one word can
change the entire meaning of a Scripture!
Read it carefully... :)
Romans 11:25-26
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.
26a) AND SO all Israel shall be saved.
Again, "and then" states a time line. But "and so"
states a method! And if you look it up in the Greek,
the words "and so" mean, "and in this manner".
In other words, it isn't that some Jews get saved
AND THEN "the fullness of the Gentiles" AND THEN
God goes back and saves all Jews.
Rather, it is that some Jews are saved AND THEN
it is "the fullness of the Gentiles" (whatever that
number was) "AND SO".. I.E., "AND IN THIS MANNER",
all Israel is saved. So in other words, "Israel" is
THE CHURCH. And the church will consist of Jews
and Gentiles ("for there is neither Jew, nor Gentile,
for all are one in Christ Jesus").
So what Paul actually said is: "And in this manner
all Israel will be saved".
Okay. And above, we see "the manner". It is listed.
Read it again:
Romans 11:25-26
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.
26a) AND SO all Israel shall be saved.
The Scripture above says:
1) Some Jews are saved (this is the remnant
Paul stated in Romans 9:27).
2) The fulness of the Gentiles are saved
(whatever amount that is).
3) In the manner listed, "all Israel" is saved.
This means that "all Israel" has been saved.
So now we must ask: "What is 'all Israel'?", right? :)
Israel is the body; the church!
Ask yourself... Who was Paul writing to here?
Non-believers? I don't think so! It was the church!
Galatians 6:15-16
15) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a
new creation.
16) And as many as walk according to this
rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and
upon the Israel of God.
Now read Romans 11:25-26a! Now I know that
the Dispy's will try to quote a couple of verses
after this, but that is because they love to pit
Scripture against Scripture, as if what I posted
can't be true, because gee, look at what this one
says! Oh and gee, they say, the Bible does not
contradict itself! Hypocrites! It never occurs to
them that Paul also talking about national Israel
in other verses, does not mean that he is in
these verses! Hello?!? And why do they ignore
what I posted, to try to pit the Bible against itself?!
Again, please, read it with the original Greek that
says, "and so" ("and in this manner") in mind as
you read it! :)
Romans 11:25-26a
25) For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be
ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in
your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened
to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
26a) AND SO all Israel will be saved.
Now you started off by saying:
VINCE: "I see that verse as indeed talking about
'universal salvation' of Israel. I can't see
how it could not, and I don't say that
because I have an agenda that requires it."
Well Vince, if that is true, then you will admit that
what I just showed you is true and that to claim
otherwise is not only to ignore the actual wording,
but is also to pit the Scriptures against themselves
(Romans 9:27 against Romans 11:25-26a).
If you still insists that it is about all of national Israel
being saved, ignoring the actual wording that is
actually found there and pitting Rom 9 against 11,
then Vince, you do indeed say it because you have
an agenda! :)
You also said in this message:
VINCE: "The whole context of the chapter is to deny
replacement theology, and from verse 1,
repeatedly talks about the theme of saving
physical Israel."
You only think that, if you read v26a as if it says,
"and then". But it says "and so" and the Greek
tells us that the word there means "and in this
manner". Again, what manner? The manner listed!
As for "replacement theology", Futurists say it like
it's a dirty term! It isn't! Paul spends his time
telling us how there is NO DIFFERENCE between
the Jew and the Gentile in Christ! None! And he
tells us how "the church" is "Israel" and to deny
that, is to deny many passages!
To believe what you do, is to believe that God is
going to force every single Jew to be saved. I am
sorry, but that's just a ridiculous thought! :)
And now, let the Futurist Scripture and word twisting
begin, since I know they can't stand it when the facts
don't fit their doctrine and I know that they must
protect their doctrine at all costs, even to the point of
filtering Scripture through their doctrine, rejecting
common sense and the rules of language, demanding
that I count their obviously deceptive work-a-rounds
as the "real rules"! :)
Maybe you won't do that Vince, but we're about to
find out, right? :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"This nation was not built by religionists. It was built
by Christians. It was not built upon religions. It was
built upon the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And
thus, people of all faiths, have found that they can
come here and not be molested in their [Christian]
faith, which is not true, anywhere else in the world."
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I do believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ
> Which makes you a Dispy.
I wish to distinguish myself from "Dispies," because they tend to believe in
a pretribulational Rapture of Christ, and somehow think the nation Israel is
in a different class from the rest of the nations. It isn't.
>> but no, I don't believe in a "third temple."
> And so, where does He sit while He reigns?
The Antichrist will sit in some kind of temple, for sure, but it won't be a
temple modelled after the OT temple. Christ himself *is* the temple of God,
and Christians themselves are the temple of Christ. Christ inhabits us
through the Holy Spirit.
randy
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
>> I really don't know what most Christians believe about this. I'd be
>> curious
>> to know.
> I see that verse as indeed talking about "universal salvation" of
> israel. I can't see how it could not, and i don;'t say that because i
> have an agenda that requires it. The whole context of the chapter is to
> deny replacement theology, and from verse 1, repeatedly talks about the
> theme of saving physical israel:
What I was explaining to Dave is that I think the emphasis is on saving an
entire national entity, as opposed to half a nation, or a third of a nation.
You will recall how Israel at one time was divided up into two kingdoms. The
thought is to save the *entire* Kingdom, and not just the southern part or
the northern part.
I reject the idea of universal salvation of every individual in a nation
because that has never happened in any Christian nation. Never has there
been a nation where every individual is truly saved. Yet I do believe that
one day we will all be gathered together into one people (formerly
consisting of all nations), and represent a single city on earth, the Holy
Jerusalem. If you calculate its size, as indicated in Revelation, it is
*huge,* reaching all the way into outer space.
But we are fully agreed, I assure you, that this passage disproves
replacement theology. This is talking about a literal restoration of the
physical nation Israel in Canaan. I believe it refers to a new Christianized
nation in the Middle East, in which Jews are converted to Christians, and
still represent the ancient people who once lived there.
randy
vince garcia
I disagree, dave. The context there is israel at that point in time.
Paul indeed goes on for two chapters showing how israel has rejected
Christ and the gentiles have accepted Him, but when you get to chapter
11 the emphasis starts to shift to the salvation of israel, starting
with verse 1, which refutes replaceent theology:
1 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,
And go now to verse 12 i quoted:
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?
Now we see paul is talking about their turning to christ, not their
eternal rejection and only a remnant being saved
>
> Please read Romans 11:25-26 again and remember,
> it doesn't say, "and then". That would indeed state
> a time line and then it would indeed read the way
> that you read it (which would also by default though,
> mean that Paul contradicted himself). But it does not
> say that! It says, "and so". And this is a BIG, BIG,
> BIG DIFFERENCE!!! :) Sometimes one word can
> change the entire meaning of a Scripture!
>
> Read it carefully... :)
One word can change meanings, yes, but i've shown that bible
commentators in full agreement with translating the passage that way can
also see it as a reference to all israel in a future time:
"Verse 26. And so. That is, in this manner; or when the great abundance
of the Gentiles shall be converted, then all Israel shall be saved.
All Israel. All the Jews."--adam clarke commentary
Otherwise, I reiterate i'm not qualified to take an absolute stand on
how the word MUST be understood, one way or the other. I can only look
at the overall message of the chapter and passage, and excluding an
issue of one word, the meaning is pretty clear; and even if you
translate the passage your way, apparently you can STILL see this as a
future event as shown in the clarke commentary
>
> Romans 11:25-26
>
> 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.
> 26a) AND SO all Israel shall be saved.
>
> Again, "and then" states a time line. But "and so"
> states a method! And if you look it up in the Greek,
> the words "and so" mean, "and in this manner".
ok
>
> In other words, it isn't that some Jews get saved
> AND THEN "the fullness of the Gentiles" AND THEN
> God goes back and saves all Jews.
Apparently there are scholars who disagree with your point here, despite
translating the passage as you do. I just showed you one
It COULD mean that if you isolate those verses from the overall context
of the chapter, but verse 12 really nails you
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?
Your contenction does not fit with "how much more their fulness" of
verse 12. Unless you mean verse 12 is talking about the gentiles being
brought fully into the gospel which makes no good sense, especially
based on verse 1
>
> So now we must ask: "What is 'all Israel'?", right? :)
>
> Israel is the body; the church!
ok. Spiritual israel, anyway
>
> Ask yourself... Who was Paul writing to here?
> Non-believers? I don't think so! It was the church!
ok. But what was the message of chapter 11 TO the gentile believers?
this: 1 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.
So he is not talking about the church; he is talking about physical
israel which has rejected Christ, and he is warning the believers he is
writing to not to get too arrogant and think God has permanently
rejected the jews
No i can't admit that, dave. I've laid out why i disagree with your view
here, and i think i have in no way twisted scripture to do it, but laid
out a well reasoned view of why I disagree based on a simple reading of
the whole of this cahpter, and not focusing on one word in one verse
>
> If you still insists that it is about all of national Israel
> being saved, ignoring the actual wording that is
> actually found there and pitting Rom 9 against 11,
> then Vince, you do indeed say it because you have
> an agenda! :)
It's not an agenda. It's based on the context of the chapter i see paul
writing.
Seriously, i could care less if preterism is true. I don't even care
about when the 'rapture' occurs. It's a non issue to me since I'll be
dead by the time i'd have to worry. But being as honest as i can on this
issue, i see it talking about the future saving of israel, which i think
is also confirmed by paul's words that: And last of all he was seen of
me also, as of one born out of due time.
I am persuaded paul means he is an example of how God will rip the
blindness away from the jews at some point, whihc is WHY he was "born
out of due time"
I don't hang my whole view on that, but it's a part of my rationale. But
even leaving it out, i really see chapter 11 dealing with the future of
israel, owing to the verses i have quoted
>
> You also said in this message:
>
> VINCE: "The whole context of the chapter is to deny
> replacement theology, and from verse 1,
> repeatedly talks about the theme of saving
> physical Israel."
>
> You only think that, if you read v26a as if it says,
> "and then".
disagree. Cut out verse 26 altogether then, and just look at 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 (the jews')
FULLNESS?
I don't know how much clearer it would have to be
But it says "and so" and the Greek
> tells us that the word there means "and in this
> manner". Again, what manner? The manner listed!
Fine. And clarke goes on to agree with what I say after that
acknowledgement. So apparently there does not have to be a contradiction
even with the verse so rendered
I'm not saying clarke is infallible, but he was a brilliant man whose
40-year-in-writing commentary is still read and respected by many, so
his view here--which agress with a futurist take--must be considered
absolutely orthodox, and certainly not influenced by darby and others
after his time
You can certainly hold a different view, but you can't accuse the man of
having some hal lindsey-like futurist agenda.
>
> As for "replacement theology", Futurists say it like
> it's a dirty term! It isn't! Paul spends his time
> telling us how there is NO DIFFERENCE between
> the Jew and the Gentile in Christ! None! And he
> tells us how "the church" is "Israel" and to deny
> that, is to deny many passages!
Sure. But i believe in physical and spiritual israel. Galatians makes
that pretty clear
>
> To believe what you do, is to believe that God is
> going to force every single Jew to be saved. I am
> sorry, but that's just a ridiculous thought! :)
"force"? I don't know. Was paul "forced"? He is the example, according
to 1 cor 15 as i see it. Maybe better to say "left with no other
alternative, with the truth shoved in their faces"
>
> And now, let the Futurist Scripture and word twisting
> begin, since I know they can't stand it when the facts
> don't fit their doctrine and I know that they must
> protect their doctrine at all costs, even to the point of
> filtering Scripture through their doctrine, rejecting
> common sense and the rules of language, demanding
> that I count their obviously deceptive work-a-rounds
> as the "real rules"! :)
>
> Maybe you won't do that Vince, but we're about to
> find out, right? :)
Well, whether you agree with me or not, i don't think you can say I
twisted chapter 11. I simply laid out the verses plainly, read nothing
unusual into them, and for the sake of argument will even agree with
your translation of verse 26. But I think a PLAIN reading of the chapter
does not hold up to a non-futurist view talking about only gentiles
being saved when verses 1 and 12 absolutely refer to jews not being
abandoned, and coming into fullness WITH the gentiles at a future point
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>> I do believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ
>
>> Which makes you a Dispy.
>
> I wish to distinguish myself from "Dispies," because
> they tend to believe in a pretribulational Rapture of
> Christ, and somehow think the nation Israel is in a
> different class from the rest of the nations. It isn't.
1) How does what you wish have anything to do with it?
2) Dispy's have differing beliefs about the rapture.
Pre, Mid, Post.
3) A Dispensationalist is one who believes in "dispensations".
Where do you think the word came from? Hello???
You believe in that and therefore, you are a Dispy and
no amount of claiming you aren't will change that.
>>> but no, I don't believe in a "third temple."
>
>> And so, where does He sit while He reigns?
>
> The Antichrist will sit in some kind of temple, for sure,
> but it won't be a temple modelled after the OT temple.
> Christ himself *is* the temple of God, and Christians
> themselves are the temple of Christ. Christ inhabits
> us through the Holy Spirit.
I didn't mention the imaginary "AntiChrist". You claimed
that you do not believe that Christ sits in a third temple
and yet, also stated that you believe that He reigns on
Earth (being here physically) for 1,000 years.
I then asked you where He (Christ) sits while He reigns
and you have now tried to obfuscate the issue, by snipping
most of what I said and pretending that I asked you about
some guy you call "The AntiChrist" and pretending that
I asked where Christ reigns now.
You did this, because you now realize that while claiming
that Christ reigns physically on Earth for 1,000 years, but
taking away the "third temple" belief, you have left Him
without anywhere to sit and reign for this 1,000 years
and you didn't want to face that fact and have to answer
my question, plain and simple!
Now are you going to continue lying about what I said?
Or are you going to answer the question?
If Christ does not sit in a "rebuilt, third temple" to reign
on Earth for 1,000 years, then where does He sit and reign?
It's a simple question. It's your belief that we're talking
about. If you can't answer even this simple question
and have to snip and obfuscate, what does that say
about your belief? And if it's that bad off, then why
do you hold said belief???
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct
that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science",
he said. "And I really think that's what's become of
Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:16:43 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>> "Pastor Dave"
>>
>>> randy
>>>> I do believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ
>>
>>> Which makes you a Dispy.
>>
>> I wish to distinguish myself from "Dispies," because
>> they tend to believe in a pretribulational Rapture of
>> Christ, and somehow think the nation Israel is in a
>> different class from the rest of the nations. It isn't.
>
>1) How does what you wish have anything to do with it?
>
>2) Dispy's have differing beliefs about the rapture.
> Pre, Mid, Post.
>
Some even believe in Pan.
>3) A Dispensationalist is one who believes in "dispensations".
> Where do you think the word came from? Hello???
> You believe in that and therefore, you are a Dispy and
> no amount of claiming you aren't will change that.
>
Dispensationalists believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, all
of it, not just the parts that some, like the Preterist, wish to
believe.
>
>>>> but no, I don't believe in a "third temple."
>>
>>> And so, where does He sit while He reigns?
>>
>> The Antichrist will sit in some kind of temple, for sure,
>> but it won't be a temple modelled after the OT temple.
>> Christ himself *is* the temple of God, and Christians
>> themselves are the temple of Christ. Christ inhabits
>> us through the Holy Spirit.
>
>I didn't mention the imaginary "AntiChrist". You claimed
>that you do not believe that Christ sits in a third temple
>and yet, also stated that you believe that He reigns on
>Earth (being here physically) for 1,000 years.
>
Here is a list of only a few of the thirty plus names the "Antichrist"
is referred to in scripture, yet, the Bible scholar Dave evidently
does not believe in any such creature.
Assyrian-Isa. 10:5
Beast-Rev. 13:1
Chaldean-Hab. 1:6
King of Fierce Countenance-Dan. 8:23
Little Horn-Dan. 7:8
Man of Sin-II Thess. 2:3
Son of Perdition-II Thess. 2:3
Vile Person-Dan. ll:21
The Wicked-II_ Thess. 2:8
>I then asked you where He (Christ) sits while He reigns
>and you have now tried to obfuscate the issue, by snipping
>most of what I said and pretending that I asked you about
>some guy you call "The AntiChrist" and pretending that
>I asked where Christ reigns now.
>
>You did this, because you now realize that while claiming
>that Christ reigns physically on Earth for 1,000 years, but
>taking away the "third temple" belief, you have left Him
>without anywhere to sit and reign for this 1,000 years
>and you didn't want to face that fact and have to answer
>my question, plain and simple!
>
>Now are you going to continue lying about what I said?
>Or are you going to answer the question?
>
Hey Randy, why not make a proposal to Dave and that being; if he will
answer your questions as to when the battle as described in Ezekiel 38
& 39 was fulfilled, you will answer where Christ will reign from?
>If Christ does not sit in a "rebuilt, third temple" to reign
>on Earth for 1,000 years, then where does He sit and reign?
>
>It's a simple question. It's your belief that we're talking
>about. If you can't answer even this simple question
>and have to snip and obfuscate, what does that say
>about your belief? And if it's that bad off, then why
>do you hold said belief???
Wow, those are some great questions Dave. If you cannot answer such a
simple question as to when Ezekiel's battle was fought and feel
obligated to "kill file" anyone when you are asked the question, what
does that say about your belief? You admonish Randy about one
question; I have asked you and your cohorts' dozens of questions that
you cannot answer so why do you hold to your un-provable belief?
I believe that is something you would classify others as "hypocrites"
for doing, do you not agree?
Bear
Terry Cross
wrote:
>
> "If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct
> that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science",
> he said. "And I really think that's what's become of
> Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
Now that is a quote.
And like it or not, the same may be said of the Holocaust. It has
passed out of the realm of history if you are forbidden to question
it.
TCross
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I wish to distinguish myself from "Dispies," because
>> they tend to believe in a pretribulational Rapture of
>> Christ, and somehow think the nation Israel is in a
>> different class from the rest of the nations. It isn't.
> 1) How does what you wish have anything to do with it?
> 2) Dispy's have differing beliefs about the rapture.
> Pre, Mid, Post.
> 3) A Dispensationalist is one who believes in "dispensations".
> Where do you think the word came from? Hello???
> You believe in that and therefore, you are a Dispy and
> no amount of claiming you aren't will change that.
What you're trying to do is define "dispensationalist" in a way *you want to
use the term.* In the sense you use the term nearly *all* Christians would
be defined as a dispensationalist, because all Christians believe in a
dispensation of Law and a dispensation of Grace.
I would exclude some postribulationists from dispensational theology,
because their emphasis on Israel's salvation is not really distinguishable
from Gentile salvation, as dispensationalists seem to teach. I believe
salvation for *all nations* exists right now. It is not separate for Israel
in the future millennium, although I do believe Israel will become a
Christian nation in the future, just as many Gentile nations have already
become Christian nations.
> I didn't mention the imaginary "AntiChrist". You claimed
> that you do not believe that Christ sits in a third temple
> and yet, also stated that you believe that He reigns on
> Earth (being here physically) for 1,000 years.
I believe Jesus will someday bring peace to earth for a thousand years,
after he has literally reappeared on earth as a man. I don't claim to know
whether he will remain here physically, or whether resurrected Christians
will remain here physically. I do believe a time will come when the earth
will be refit for our literall possession for all eternity.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<tcro...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> On Jan 13, 6:20�am, Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>> "If something in science suddenly becomes so sacrosanct
>> �that you can't question it, then it ceases to be science",
>> �he said. �"And I really think that's what's become of
>> �Darwinism." - Roger DeHart
>
> Now that is a quote.
>
> And like it or not, the same may be said of the Holocaust.
> It has passed out of the realm of history if you are forbidden
> to question it.
I believe it happened. Was it six million? More? Less?
I don't know, nor do I pretend to know.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Deeds of faith outweigh any speech of the same."
-unknown
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> I wish to distinguish myself from "Dispies," because
>>> they tend to believe in a pretribulational Rapture of
>>> Christ, and somehow think the nation Israel is in a
>>> different class from the rest of the nations. It isn't.
>
>> 1) How does what you wish have anything to do with it?
>> 2) Dispy's have differing beliefs about the rapture.
>> Pre, Mid, Post.
>> 3) A Dispensationalist is one who believes in "dispensations".
>> Where do you think the word came from? Hello???
>> You believe in that and therefore, you are a Dispy and
>> no amount of claiming you aren't will change that.
>
> What you're trying to do is define "dispensationalist"
> in a way *you want to use the term.*
No, I'm telling you what the word ACTUALLY MEANS.
Dispensationalism = the interpreting of history as
a series of divine dispensations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensationalism
>> I didn't mention the imaginary "AntiChrist". You claimed
>> that you do not believe that Christ sits in a third temple
>> and yet, also stated that you believe that He reigns on
>> Earth (being here physically) for 1,000 years.
>
> I believe Jesus will someday bring peace to earth for
> a thousand years, after he has literally reappeared
> on earth as a man. I don't claim to know whether
> he will remain here physically, or whether resurrected
> Christians will remain here physically. I do believe
> a time will come when the earth will be refit for our
> literall possession for all eternity.
In other words, you think He comes back to try to
do again His first mission, which if your doctrine is
correct, He failed at. So now He comes again, but
this time forces everyone in the world to stop being
sinners. But at the same time, they're not all saved,
because they don't all accept Him as Lord, but at
the same time, they have proof He exists and are
no longer sinners, which makes your doctrine a
self-contradictory one.
And of course, He actually fails again, since even
though He's here, proving again that He exists,
not everyone believes and it lasts only 1,000 years.
Yea, that's a nice belief there! <chuckle!>
--
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
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
It doesn't matter what you agree with. You don't get
to remove half of the context, because it doesn't suit
your doctrine. The context is not just Israel, but what
portion of it would be saved and Paul said it would be
"a remnant". You saw the passage quoted and you
don't get to say that the context is Israel and just
remove those words from the passage.
>> Please read Romans 11:25-26 again and remember,
>> it doesn't say, "and then". That would indeed state
>> a time line and then it would indeed read the way
>> that you read it (which would also by default though,
>> mean that Paul contradicted himself). But it does not
>> say that! It says, "and so". And this is a BIG, BIG,
>> BIG DIFFERENCE!!! :) Sometimes one word can
>> change the entire meaning of a Scripture!
>>
>> Read it carefully... :)
>
> One word can change meanings, yes, but i've shown
> that bible commentators in full agreement with translating
> the passage that way can also see it as a reference to
> all israel in a future time:
They're not "translating it". They're "interpreting it"
according to their preassumed doctrine.
If they HONESTLY TRANSLATED the word, they would
find that it is as follows:
houto = in this manner
Again, it does NOT say, "and THEN all Israel will be saved".
Rather, it says, "and IN THIS MANNER/WAY, all Israel
will be saved".
In what manner? The manner you keep trying to ignore!
1) Some Jews are saved (Rom 9:26-28; 11:25).
2) The fulness of the Gentiles comes in (Rom 11:25).
3) And in this manner (see above, just described),
all Israel is saved.
Thus, "all Israel" consists of a remnant of national Israel
and the fulness of the Gentiles, whatever that number is.
And that is why Galatians 6:15-16 reads the way it does.
But you want me to believe that God is going to force
every Jews to be saved and that runs contrary to your
whole belief system!
And what do you do with that big, huge problem for
your belief system, Vince?! You ignore it and pretend
that you never saw the problem!
And we both know that means that you are intentionally
accepting what you know doesn't make sense, so that
you can pretend that it's all about you today! And you
do that, because for you, if the Bible isn't all about
you today, then to you, it is a useless waste of paper
and ink and we both know it!
Face it... If you had to admit that the prophecies of
the Bible have been fulfilled, then you don't want to
have anything to do with the Bible, because that would
mean that it is about the spiritual and not the physical,
which is where your heart is, while you hypocritically
claim to be all about the spiritual! (:
Bottom line...
I am not concerned with what Futurists say about it.
I am concerned with what the Bible itself says.
You have a really bad habit of trying to claim that
because a bunch of people say it, that makes it true.
Furthermore, you prove that you are Futurist biased,
when you say, "in a future time". Where does it say,
"and this will not have happened yet in 2010 AD"?
The ONLY thing that ANY person can HONESTLY say
about ANY passage of the NT that describes a future
event, is that it had not happened yet, at the time
that it was said/written, period!
>> Romans 11:25-26
>>
>> 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.
>> 26a) AND SO all Israel shall be saved.
>>
>> Again, "and then" states a time line. But "and so"
>> states a method! And if you look it up in the Greek,
>> the words "and so" mean, "and in this manner".
>
> ok
See below.
>> In other words, it isn't that some Jews get saved
>> AND THEN "the fullness of the Gentiles" AND THEN
>> God goes back and saves all Jews.
>
> Apparently there are scholars who disagree with
> your point here, despite translating the passage
> as you do. I just showed you one
Once again, you have NO POINT to make! Instead,
you lamely try to tell me what someone else says
it is and think that proves something! (:
And you are being completely disingenuous when
you claim that ONLY I translate it that way! That
is what the word means, PERIOD!
You can't discuss the issue and yet, insist you're right!
I didn't isolate a damn thing.
>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?
Where does v12 say, "and every Jew will be saved"?
Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
And who is now taking things out of context?
I showed you how chapters 9 & 11 tie together.
You're showing me a verse that does NOT speak
of any number and claiming it says that all Jews
will be saved. I showed you a passage that DOES
show an amount and you claim that I'm isolating
Rom 11:25-26a, when the verse I showed you
is in Rom 9. Huh??? (:
>> So now we must ask: "What is 'all Israel'?", right? :)
>>
>> Israel is the body; the church!
>
> ok. Spiritual israel, anyway
Once again, Futurist crap! You Futurists claim that
it is about the physical and when the Bible says that
it is about the spiritual, you then try to claim that
there are two versions of everything. The spiritual
and the physical. But can you point to duplicate
verses that say, "the physical"? Nope!
You begin by assuming it and then read it back into
the Bible and then when challenged, you point to
the same verses that you were shown don't say it
is physical, but rather, say it is spiritual!
You assume your doctrine and then filter the Bible
through it and then claim that you get your doctrine
from the Bible! You use circular reasoning!
>> Ask yourself... Who was Paul writing to here?
>> Non-believers? I don't think so! It was the church!
>
> ok. But what was the message of chapter 11 TO
> the gentile believers?
You just proved my point for me! He wrote to believers!
>this: 1 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.
Now where does Paul say, "ALL JEWS WILL BE SAVED"???
Again, it was a remnant! You can choose not to cast away
any people. But that does not mean that you can or will
save every single one of them! America has not cast away
the Iraqi people. But guess what? They are still dying!
Yes and your reason was... "Other people said so
and I want it to be true".
You then ignored the fact that Paul stated very clearly,
"and in this manner all Israel will be saved" and described
what that manner was.
You also ignored the fact that Israel is the church and
tried to lamely add, "but there is another Israel and it
is physical", without showing where Paul said:
"Okay guys, now I'm switching gears to the physical".
Here's what you miss...
When Paul said "all Israel", he said it right after including
the Gentiles, which makes them part of Israel, which means
that both Jews and Gentiles were part of "all Israel".
But you don't like that. So you try to pull a verse from
somewhere else and say that it means that he excluded
Gentiles from "Israel", even though he specifically
included them!
It does not say "and then". It says, "and so". And that
word translated to "so" means, "and in this manner"
and that is not up for debate!
You Futurists claim to be such Biblical geniuses and when
I say that you get your doctrine from others, you always
claim that "The Bible tells me so!". And yet, what do you
rely on? "Commentators say so!" and then ignore whatever
words, or proper definitions of those words don't suit you,
which means that when the Bible interferes with your doctrine,
YOU IGNORE THE BIBLE, VINCE!
Please! <chuckle>
You proved to me what I already knew you would do.
You placed your doctrine over the Bible! (:
You don't care what it says, if it doesn't line up with
your doctrine, which is why you keep referring me
to commentators who are also Futurists.
But hey, you get your doctrine straight from the Bible, right???
--
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"
randy
>> What you're trying to do is define "dispensationalist"
>> in a way *you want to use the term.*
> No, I'm telling you what the word ACTUALLY MEANS.
> Dispensationalism = the interpreting of history as
> a series of divine dispensations.
And I'm telling you that your abbreviated definition of the word is
misleading. For example, it completely avoids the fact that
dispensationalism is also associated with pretribulational eschatology,
something I utterly reject. Dispensationalism also tends to deny Israel its
national promises in the current age--something I also deny. And many
dispensationalists believe there will be a return by the Jews in Israel to
temple law. I utterly reject that. I am not, on this basis, a
dispensationist.
But you ignore all this, and just go on insisting that there is this very
broad general definition of "dispensationalist" that applies also to me.
That is, as I said, misleading. I may agree with certain aspects of
dispensationalism, such as a literal millennium, and the Christianization of
Israel. But in many respects I differ with dispensationalism.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensationalism
You would be included in this very generalized definition of
dispensationalism as well! If you believe in an Old Testament and in a New
Testament, then you too must be a dispensationalist! But we're speaking here
of a more technical definition of the term, which is much more narrowly
defined. You should most certainly know this!
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> What you're trying to do is define "dispensationalist"
>>> in a way *you want to use the term.*
>
>> No, I'm telling you what the word ACTUALLY MEANS.
>
>> Dispensationalism = the interpreting of history as
>> a series of divine dispensations.
>
> And I'm telling you that your abbreviated definition
> of the word is misleading.
The link to it shows what the basic definition is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensationalism
> For example, it completely avoids the fact that
> dispensationalism is also associated with pretribulational
> eschatology, something I utterly reject.
Dispensationalism is about dispensations. Within it
has emerged pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib beliefs,
which I admit, did pervert the original "Darby Dispy"
belief system.
I think you are confusing "pretrib" with "premillennial".
If memory serves, all Dispy's are premillennials. But
they are not necessarily pretrib (although mostly so).
> Dispensationalism also tends to deny Israel its
> national promises in the current age--something
> I also deny. And many dispensationalists believe
> there will be a return by the Jews in Israel to
> temple law. I utterly reject that. I am not,
> on this basis, a dispensationist.
Dispensationalism doesn't deny national Israel any such
thing. At the time Darby promoted it, it was prior to 1948,
which is what Dispy's now claim it was about.
Darby came to believe in a future national restoration of
Israel ordered by God to fulfill prophecy and based his
belief on Isaiah 32.
Darby saw a clear difference between Israel and the church,
as almost every Futurist does. But this is contrary to
Scripture, which says that there is no difference between
Jew and Gentile in Christ and that sticking to this concept
that Dispy's hold, does indeed lead to a teaching of bondage
(Gal 4:21-31; 6:15-16; Heb 8:13).
> But you ignore all this, and just go on insisting
> that there is this very broad general definition
> of "dispensationalist" that applies also to me.
The general definition does.
> I may agree with certain aspects of dispensationalism,
> such as a literal millennium, and the Christianization of
> Israel. But in many respects I differ with dispensationalism.
You disagree with the pre-trib belief within it.
As I said, there are others.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensationalism
>
> You would be included in this very generalized definition
> of dispensationalism as well! If you believe in an Old
> Testament and in a New Testament, then you too must
> be a dispensationalist!
Nice try. Really. :) But Dispensationalist periods of time
consists of the general ages of the Bible further broken
up into these "dispensations". In other words, you have
the "church age", broken up into "dispensations" and
that is what the word implies.
> But we're speaking here of a more technical definition
> of the term, which is much more narrowly defined.
> You should most certainly know this!
Dispensationalism pretty much began with John Darby
and I'll agree, he was a pretribber. :) But one need
not strictly adhere to every detail of what he believed,
to be a Dispensationalist, since Dispensationalism is
believing in these broken up sections within the ages,
thereby creating new ones, specifically, seven of them.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Hence, the coming of the Lord to get His own
is and has been IMMINENT. It could happen
any moment. It might not happen for a couple
more thousand years. The coming for the saints
(pretribualtion rapture/resurrection) is and
has been IMMINENT and shall remain so. Amen!:
- Futurist Usenet poster
How is something "imminent" for two thousand years?
And how does something "remain imminent" for thousands
of years more? This is Biblical acrobatics, designed
to make the Bible all about you today!
Imminent = About to occur; impending.
And there is no way around that! The Futurist word
play regarding the Second Coming and the fact that
both Christ and the Apostles taught that it was indeed
immiment and so, they are forced into these Biblical
acrobatics to try to explain this fact away!
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> And I'm telling you that your abbreviated definition
>> of the word is misleading.
> The link to it shows what the basic definition is.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensationalism
Dave, I'm telling you this is a very *generalized* definition of the word.
The way we're using the word has a much more *technical* definition. You're
using the wrong definition for our use of the word. In dictionaries, it
might be definition no. 1 or definition no. 2 that we're using, but not
both!
"the interpreting of history as a series of divine dispensations." You might
be included in this very broad, ambiguous definition of the word, which
attempts to encompass all concepts of dispensationalism under one
definition. But the more proper way to define our use of the word would be
through the use of two definitions, one very generic like this one, and the
other detailing dispensationalism as a systematic theology associated with
John Nelson Darby.
> Dispensationalism is about dispensations. Within it
> has emerged pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib beliefs,
> which I admit, did pervert the original "Darby Dispy"
> belief system.
This may be arguable. That is certainly how some are trying to categorize
it. That is in fact how *you* are trying to categorize it. I would
immediately remove mid-trib and post-trib beliefs from dispensationalism,
because they don't fit into Darby's prophetic scheme. However, there are
mid-trib and post-trib adherants who do hold to much of Darby's systematic
theology, and so could be labelled a "dispensationalist."
On the other hand there are those who are post-trib, for example, who do not
at all hold to Darby's systematic theology, and should not be labelled a
"dispensationalist." I fall into this category. Consider how Ladd, for
example, is excluded from the dispensationalist camp by this encyclopedia
article (and I am a fond follower of G.E. Ladd)...
(quote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
Dispensationalists are premillenialists who affirm a future, literal 1,000
year reign of Jesus Christ which merges with and continues on to the eternal
state in the "new heavens and the new earth" (Rev. 21), and they hold that
the millennial kingdom will be theocratic in nature and not mainly
soteriological, as it is viewed by George Ladd and others who hold to a
non-dispensational form of premillennialism. Dispensationalism is known for
its views respecting the nation of Israel during this millennial kingdom
reign, in which Israel as a nation plays a major role and regains a king, a
land, and an everlasting kingdom.
(unquote)
> I think you are confusing "pretrib" with "premillennial".
> If memory serves, all Dispy's are premillennials. But
> they are not necessarily pretrib (although mostly so).
No, I've been studying this subject since the mid-70s. I was reading G.E.
Ladd at that time and in fact wrote him. I sadly received a note back
through the mail, telling me he had died. So I never got any response to
some of my concerns. I visited Calvary Chapel, where Chuck Smith pastored,
to discuss this with a representative. But I lacked theological training,
and didn't get anywhere. So no, I didn't "confuse" pretrib with
premillennial. And yes, all Dispys are premillennials.
> Dispensationalism doesn't deny national Israel any such
> thing. At the time Darby promoted it, it was prior to 1948,
> which is what Dispy's now claim it was about.
I'm talking about the division of dispensations into a "Gentile age" and an
"Israeli age." The rebirth of Israel within the current age actually seems,
in one sense, to disprove dispensationalism.
> Darby saw a clear difference between Israel and the church,
> as almost every Futurist does....
That isn't correct, I feel. Dispensationalists sort of deny legitimacy to
the Israeli nation, and tend to reduce Christianity from "nations" to simply
an international body of believers. I retain the legitimacy of "nations" in
the economy of God's salvation, because "nations" were promised to Abraham.
And I suppose this precedes the coming of the New Jerusalem, when these
national distinctions will become more blurred. At that time only a single
"city" will emerge.
>> I may agree with certain aspects of dispensationalism,
>> such as a literal millennium, and the Christianization of
>> Israel. But in many respects I differ with dispensationalism.
> You disagree with the pre-trib belief within it.
> As I said, there are others.
I suppose I'll have to study the dispensationalist theological system more
carefully. It never did make much sense to me. But premillennialism has been
around far longer than dispensationalism, and I have no problem identifying
with that. Futurism also has been around for many hundreds of years. So I
can call myself a "futurist" without allying myself with dispensationalism
and all that that entails.
>> You would be included in this very generalized definition
>> of dispensationalism as well! If you believe in an Old
>> Testament and in a New Testament, then you too must
>> be a dispensationalist!
> Nice try. Really. :) But Dispensationalist periods of time
> consists of the general ages of the Bible further broken
> up into these "dispensations". In other words, you have
> the "church age", broken up into "dispensations" and
> that is what the word implies.
As I said, the definition you provided was extremely general, and did not
break up the church age into ages. It just referred to a "series of
dispensations."
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>> Dispensationalism is about dispensations. Within it
>> has emerged pre-trib, mid-trib and post-trib beliefs,
>> which I admit, did pervert the original "Darby Dispy"
>> belief system.
>
> This may be arguable.
See below.
> (quote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
> Dispensationalists are premillenialists who affirm a future,
> literal 1,000 year reign of Jesus Christ
See below.
>> I think you are confusing "pretrib" with "premillennial".
>> If memory serves, all Dispy's are premillennials. But
>> they are not necessarily pretrib (although mostly so).
>
> No, I've been studying this subject since the mid-70s.
Now put it all together. You are confusing the two!
Even your own quote shows that it is about being
premillennial, not pretrib!
It says right there in your own quote:
"Dispensationalists are premillennialists..."
You claimed they are "pretribbers". But the truth is,
there are Dispy's who are mid and post-tribbers!
>> Darby saw a clear difference between Israel and the church,
>> as almost every Futurist does....
>
> That isn't correct, I feel.
It is correct. It is what Futurists as a whole do.
Or at least 99.9% of them anyway. :)
>>> You would be included in this very generalized definition
>>> of dispensationalism as well! If you believe in an Old
>>> Testament and in a New Testament, then you too must
>>> be a dispensationalist!
>
>> Nice try. Really. :) But Dispensationalist periods of time
>> consists of the general ages of the Bible further broken
>> up into these "dispensations". In other words, you have
>> the "church age", broken up into "dispensations" and
>> that is what the word implies.
>
> As I said, the definition you provided was extremely general
> and did not break up the church age into ages.
Yes, I know, the seven churches of Revelation.
They become "ages", even though they really
did exist. :)
--
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
Ike E 1/2/2010
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hntfl5tas67i50fng...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Yes, I know, the seven churches of Revelation.
> They become "ages", even though they really
> did exist. :)
They existed to "foreshadow" things to come, just as in pretty much every
other prophecy of the Bible, oh, clueless one.
Ike
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> Now put it all together. You are confusing the two!
> Even your own quote shows that it is about being
> premillennial, not pretrib!
Darby's system was pretrib. Dispensationalism is built upon Darby's system.
And Darby's system contained a prophetic emphasis that I may not completely
agree with. So I prefer to be called a premillennial futurist--and not a
Darbyite, or Dispensationalist.
> It says right there in your own quote:
> "Dispensationalists are premillennialists..."
Well that's a fact. Dispensationalists are indeed premillennialists. But
they are certainly more than that--otherwise they would just be called
"premillenialists." But inasmuch as they are called "Dispensationalists," I
think we have to understand that not all premillennialists, like myself, are
"dispensationalists!"
I want to clearly distinguish myself from the pretribulational emphasis of
most dispensationalists. And I don't want to be associated with beliefs
about Israel that I don't subscribe to at all!
> You claimed they are "pretribbers". But the truth is,
> there are Dispy's who are mid and post-tribbers!
Some may be. But I don't want to be associated with a system that is largely
*pretribulational.* And there are other teachings predominant in
dispensationalism I also don't want to be associated with, such as their
type of distinction between the Church and Israel. I can't say I fully
understand their position. So I've decided to set aside the confusion and
simply draw upon my own understanding of the Scriptures.
> It is correct. It is what Futurists as a whole do.
> Or at least 99.9% of them anyway. :)
You're here talking about the distinction between Israel and the Church. We
would have to deal with the subject in detail before discussing whether most
futurists agree with it or not. I don't think it's significant, though.
Certainly many futurists holds to this belief about Israel, because many
futurists are themselves pretribulational dispensationalists!
>> As I said, the definition you provided was extremely general
>> and did not break up the church age into ages.
> Yes, I know, the seven churches of Revelation.
> They become "ages", even though they really
> did exist. :)
The definition you provided said zero about the seven churches of
Revelation. You believe in an OT dispensation and a NT dispensation.
Therefore you are a kind of "dispensationalist," based on the definition you
gave me. I am not a Darbyist, just like you aren't a Darbyist. I prefer to
call myself a premillennial futurist, and you a preterist, or the like.
These are better categories to distinguish ourselves. All else is
provocation. If you want to discuss my differences with dispensationalists
on the subject of Israel and the Church, I would be fine with that.
randy
vince garcia
nor do you--which is exactly what you're doing, but since YOUR agenda is
what matters to you, you can't see or accept it!
The context is not just Israel, but what
> portion of it would be saved and Paul said it would be
> "a remnant".
So? God could supernaturally save 100% of the jews today and STILL only
a "remnant" would be saved because 2000 years of jews have died in sin.
You didn't think of THAT, did you? :)
You saw the passage quoted and you
> don't get to say that the context is Israel and just
> remove those words from the passage.
And you apparently didn't see verse 12 except through your preterist
agenda, and you fall prey to the very warning of verse 25!
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.
Dave--he means YOU!
>
> >> Please read Romans 11:25-26 again and remember,
> >> it doesn't say, "and then". That would indeed state
> >> a time line and then it would indeed read the way
> >> that you read it (which would also by default though,
> >> mean that Paul contradicted himself). But it does not
> >> say that! It says, "and so". And this is a BIG, BIG,
> >> BIG DIFFERENCE!!! :) Sometimes one word can
> >> change the entire meaning of a Scripture!
> >>
> >> Read it carefully... :)
> >
> > One word can change meanings, yes, but i've shown
> > that bible commentators in full agreement with translating
> > the passage that way can also see it as a reference to
> > all israel in a future time:
>
> They're not "translating it". They're "interpreting it"
> according to their preassumed doctrine.
as are you!
It is amazing to me that when YOU interpret something, you're not
reading anything into a verse, nor are you giving it ANY interpretation,
but if someone else does the same, theyr'e scripture twisters
I quoted those verses at FACE VALUE, and you accuse me "interpreting"
and changing them to fit MY agenda when the fact is, YOU'RE the one
doing it!
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?
Who's that talking about? Gentiles? Are GENTILES the natural branches?
Yet you're so blinded by preterism you can't see past verse 26, and make
your INTERPRETATION of verse 26 change the CLEAR meaning of everything
that comes before it taken at FACE VALUE WITH NO INTERPRETATION ADDED TO
IT.
Can you see that you, yourself, are guilty of exactly what you attack
everyone else who disagrees with you of?
No, of course not.
>
> If they HONESTLY TRANSLATED the word, they would
> find that it is as follows:
>
> houto = in this manner
>
> Again, it does NOT say, "and THEN all Israel will be saved".
> Rather, it says, "and IN THIS MANNER/WAY, all Israel
> will be saved".
>
> In what manner? The manner you keep trying to ignore!
>
> 1) Some Jews are saved (Rom 9:26-28; 11:25).
>
> 2) The fulness of the Gentiles comes in (Rom 11:25).
>
> 3) And in this manner (see above, just described),
> all Israel is saved.
>
> Thus, "all Israel" consists of a remnant of national Israel
> and the fulness of the Gentiles, whatever that number is.
> And that is why Galatians 6:15-16 reads the way it does.
No, dave--that's NOT WHAT IT SAYS. That's your INTERPRETATION.
You keep applying your prejudice to the chapter based on your fixation
with verse 26.
Verse 1 of the chapter DENIES God has cast away THE JEWS! Verse 12 talks
of THEIR future fulness.
To deny that is to interpret away the clear statements being made, dave.
But when I take them at face value, unlike you do, suddenly I'm
"interpreting them"
No--you have it backwards, and I won't back down: YOU are interpreting;
I am accepting them at face value.
I can only assume you are fighting so hard for your view because your
preterist world view collapses if this chapter actually means what it
says, so IF it's true that 'my' view of this chapter would require the
preterist view to be false...then you just proved the position false by
your clear rejection of what the text says, and your 'interpretation'
that totally changes the clear meaning of those verses.
>
> But you want me to believe that God is going to force
> every Jews to be saved and that runs contrary to your
> whole belief system!
You're doing it again--you keep using the word "force".
I already asked you if paul was "forced"?
And by the way--IF you're a calvinist, you would typically believe God
"forces" people top be saved anyway through His sovereign election and
will, so the idea shouldn't bother you that much unless you denounce
calvinism too
>
> And what do you do with that big, huge problem for
> your belief system, Vince?! You ignore it and pretend
> that you never saw the problem!
>
> And we both know that means that you are intentionally
> accepting what you know doesn't make sense, so that
> you can pretend that it's all about you today! And you
> do that, because for you, if the Bible isn't all about
> you today, then to you, it is a useless waste of paper
> and ink and we both know it!
>
> Face it... If you had to admit that the prophecies of
> the Bible have been fulfilled, then you don't want to
> have anything to do with the Bible, because that would
> mean that it is about the spiritual and not the physical,
> which is where your heart is, while you hypocritically
> claim to be all about the spiritual! (:
>
> Bottom line...
>
> I am not concerned with what Futurists say about it.
> I am concerned with what the Bible itself says.
>
> You have a really bad habit of trying to claim that
> because a bunch of people say it, that makes it true.
No--but since you automatically dismiss me as an ignoramus whenever _I_
try to argue against what you say, I try to find some support from
theologians who are far better known and respected than you are, but you
deny them too, so whatever
>
> Furthermore, you prove that you are Futurist biased,
> when you say, "in a future time". Where does it say,
> "and this will not have happened yet in 2010 AD"?
>
> The ONLY thing that ANY person can HONESTLY say
> about ANY passage of the NT that describes a future
> event, is that it had not happened yet, at the time
> that it was said/written, period!
fair enough
>
> >> Romans 11:25-26
> >>
> >> 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.
> >> 26a) AND SO all Israel shall be saved.
> >>
> >> Again, "and then" states a time line. But "and so"
> >> states a method! And if you look it up in the Greek,
> >> the words "and so" mean, "and in this manner".
> >
> > ok
>
> See below.
>
> >> In other words, it isn't that some Jews get saved
> >> AND THEN "the fullness of the Gentiles" AND THEN
> >> God goes back and saves all Jews.
> >
> > Apparently there are scholars who disagree with
> > your point here, despite translating the passage
> > as you do. I just showed you one
>
> Once again, you have NO POINT to make! Instead,
> you lamely try to tell me what someone else says
> it is and think that proves something! (:
>
> And you are being completely disingenuous when
> you claim that ONLY I translate it that way! \
Did i say ONLY you interpret it that way? If i did, I didn't mean to. I
do deny what YOU are teaching in this conversation, and that would be
the only basis upon which I would make it a "you" thing
Rom 9 doesn't exist independent of romans 11 WHICH DENIES YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF ISRAEL'S 'FULLNESS'--unless you "interpret" it in your
world view, and pound it into chapter 9's round hole by ignoring what 11
says on the issue!
And yes, only a remnant will be saved even if every jew on earth right
now were to be saved. THAT'S interpretation, yes. But the teachings of
verse 12 and 15 need no interpretation, and speak clearly about THE
JEWS, not the gentiles
>
> >> So now we must ask: "What is 'all Israel'?", right? :)
> >>
> >> Israel is the body; the church!
> >
> > ok. Spiritual israel, anyway
>
> Once again, Futurist crap! You Futurists claim that
> it is about the physical and when the Bible says that
> it is about the spiritual, you then try to claim that
> there are two versions of everything. The spiritual
> and the physical. But can you point to duplicate
> verses that say, "the physical"? Nope!
You deny there is a physical israel?
1 cor 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the
sacrifices partakers of the altar?
There you go--physical israel. End of discussion.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him
that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and
mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
There you go--spiritual israel. End of discussion.
If we can't agree on anything else, we should agree there is a physical
and spiritual israel
>
> You begin by assuming it and then read it back into
> the Bible and then when challenged, you point to
> the same verses that you were shown don't say it
> is physical, but rather, say it is spiritual!
I showed you where the verses ARE physical, and you rejected that to
hold onto your agenda.
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?
That's physical israel, and talks about their future fullness. You can
deny that from now til Jesus comes, and you will still be wrong.
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?
That's physical israel, and talks about their future fullness. You can
deny that from now til Jesus comes, and you will still be wrong.
>
> You assume your doctrine and then filter the Bible
> through it and then claim that you get your doctrine
> from the Bible! You use circular reasoning!
look in the mirror! YOU'RE the one ignoring the clear teaching of those
verses.
>
> >> Ask yourself... Who was Paul writing to here?
> >> Non-believers? I don't think so! It was the church!
> >
> > ok. But what was the message of chapter 11 TO
> > the gentile believers?
>
> You just proved my point for me! He wrote to believers!
And you ducked my question! What was the MESSAGE? Again, this:
1 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.
>
> >this: 1 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.
>
> Now where does Paul say, "ALL JEWS WILL BE SAVED"???
I'm not going to insist on a given percentage. IT COULD be 100% of them;
it could NOT be. I will only state what verses 12 and 15 say: there is a
receiving and fullness of them coming. I didn't write that--Paul did.
Go rebuke HIM
fine--everyone agrees the gentiles are a part of the true israel. But
what YOU miss are the previous verses that talk about the jews and THEIR
fullness, which is a FUTURE fullness.
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?
For God's sake--what do you need to admit that's talking about THE JEWS?
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?
For God's sake--what do you need to admit that's talking about THE JEWS?
>
> But you don't like that. So you try to pull a verse from
> somewhere else and say that it means that he excluded
> Gentiles from "Israel", even though he specifically
> included them!
The "somewhere else" are verses in the same chapter that talk about THE
JEWS!
>
> It does not say "and then". It says, "and so". And that
> word translated to "so" means, "and in this manner"
> and that is not up for debate!
The "debate" is your INTERPRETATION
>
> You Futurists claim to be such Biblical geniuses and when
> I say that you get your doctrine from others, you always
> claim that "The Bible tells me so!". And yet, what do you
> rely on? "Commentators say so!" and then ignore whatever
> words, or proper definitions of those words don't suit you,
> which means that when the Bible interferes with your doctrine,
> YOU IGNORE THE BIBLE, VINCE!
No, YOU do, dave! I've shown you do. And all that's left is for the
readers, if they care--and they probably don't--to judge if it is you or
I ignoring the clear teaching of scripture to fit his own agenda.
bear
Excellent rebuttal Vince, and unlike Dave, it is all scriptural. I
believe you have him pegged for what he is, as he likes to say,
"hypocrite".
Bear
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>> Now put it all together. You are confusing the two!
>> Even your own quote shows that it is about being
>> premillennial, not pretrib!
>
> Darby's system was pretrib.
Darby was pre-trib. That's different than saying
that Dispensationalism is pre-trib. You can argue
all day long, but the fact is, that Dispensationalists
must be pre-millennial. Most are pre-trib, but there
are mid and post-trib Dispensationalists.
"Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical
tradition and theology based on a biblical
hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically
successive dispensations or periods in history in
which God relates to human beings in different
ways under different Biblical covenants. As a
system dispensationalism is rooted in the writings
of John Nelson Darby and the Brethren Movement.
The theology of dispensationalism consists of a
distinctive eschatological end times perspective,
as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism
and most hold to a pretribulation rapture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
> Dispensationalism is built upon Darby's system.
> And Darby's system contained a prophetic
> emphasis that I may not completely agree with.
Yes, it was built upon his belief system. And I am
glad that you have brought this up and stated
these things as fact, because it is very revealing
when it is looked into and now not you, nor any
other Futurists who comment, can deny these facts
and pretend that I am making stuff up about this. :)
You see, this proves that Dispensationalism has
only been around since the early 1800's. And
that means that it is a new belief system and
therefore cannot be what Jesus and the
Apostles taught. Furthermore, it also means
that the church was lost for 1800 years and
no one knew what they were talking about.
I.e., the church was lost for 1800 years after Christ!
Now you can try to dispute this, but if the church
did not have "the truth" for the first 1800 years,
then the church was lost. It's that simple.
Not only this, but since the Dispy system cannot be
found in the NT Scriptures, which is why it wasn't
a belief system for the first 1800 years and it is a
fact that Darby invented it from Isaiah 32 and then
read his assumption into the NT, it also means that
Jesus (since He certainly never taught the Darby
system) and the Apostles (I have proved that they
taught a same generation return, which blows any
"1,000 year reign on Earth" out of the water as
something they would have believed in) never
taught it, that means that not only was the church
lost for the first 1800 years, but that the Lord Jesus
Himself and the Apostles were included in that
"lost" state.
Now of course Dispy's object to this at first, when
they are told this. But their responses always turn
to them tossing insults at me, once I prove that
this would have to be the case and they do end
up admitting that their belief requires that they
are in a state of knowledge and spiritual position
that even Jesus and the Apostles weren't in.
That is why you sometimes see me responding
to Futurists by showing them that Paul stated
clearly that they did know and were revealing
"the mysteries held since before the foundation
of the world" to the church back then.
The Dispy system is based on pure vanity. In fact,
each generation doesn't even credit the previous
generation with any knowledge, even though that
would be required. Rather, when asked, "What
about the generation before you, that thought
that they were 'the generation' you speak of...",
their response is, "Well, they got to look forward
to us today.". But hey, no vanity there, huh? :)
Darby's system of "dispensations" is based on failures.
This is another thing that Dispensationalists don't seem
to know and when they find out, they don't wasn't to
acknowledge. They attack and insult me when I post
the facts about this, claiming I am working for evil,
but the fact is, that is what Darby, who invented
this system taught! Each "dispensation" ending,
is ending because of its failure. And since God
is the one in control, it is God's failure that is under
discussion here! And in fact, the whole concept of
Jesus' first appearance on Earth under the Darby
system is the concept that He came to set up an
Earthly kingdom, but was rejected and killed and
therefore, failed in His mission. Look it up yourself.
Now when we follow this through, it means that
Jesus' crucifixion was not intended and therefore,
His mission on Earth had nothing to do with being
our Savior and bringing Gentiles into the fold,
which voids that prophecy altogether! The truth
is, that it makes the cross a consolation prize and
everything that has happened and will happen
a consolation prize, since the fact that there will
be (according to this system) a total of seven
"dispensations", that means that the first six fail.
That's the part that Dispy's don't want to understand.
It isn't just that one comes after another. Darby's
system states clearly that the next one comes only
because the one before it failed! And this means,
plainly and simply, that Darby's system is based on
the idea that the first six dispensations at the least,
are doomed to failure.
And in fact, as I have pointed out many times,
the Apostles taught the opposite of Darby's system
in many places and quite simply, that means that
it doesn't come from the NT and as I said, even
Darby knew that and admitted that his system
came from Isaiah 32 and was then applied into
the NT and not the other way around. He then
saw a difference between what would be for the
church and what would be for the Jew and for
the church it was spiritual and for the Jew it was
physical under his belief system. As I said, Darby
had ideas that were the opposite of what the
Apostles taught and here it is clearly shown,
since this means what Paul said must be false,
if Darby is right, since Paul said that both Jew
and Gentile are part of the church and that it
doesn't matter if one is Jew or Gentile and that
both partake from the same spiritual blessings!
Anyway, as I said, look these things up for yourself.
If you are objective about it, you will find that what
I said here is true (and is even based on what you
said in this message) and is why you see the posts
from me on this subject, saying these things and
maybe when you see such a post (you will today),
you might give it just a few more minutes of your
reading time. :)
> So I prefer to be called a premillennial futurist
> and not a Darbyite, or Dispensationalist.
And yet, you claim to believe what Darby did
and defend that. So why try to separate yourself?
>> It says right there in your own quote:
>> "Dispensationalists are premillennialists..."
>
> Well that's a fact.
And that is what I said. :)
> Dispensationalists are indeed premillennialists.
> But they are certainly more than that
But they do not have to be pre-tribbers.
> I want to clearly distinguish myself from
> the pretribulational emphasis of most
> dispensationalists. And I don't want to
> be associated with beliefs about Israel
> that I don't subscribe to at all!
Okay, so you wish to disassociate yourself from Darby.
But you have a problem here, since you do believe in
dispensations and that is a Darby invention. :)
As for what else I said in the more general sense,
I said that one is a Dispensationalist, if one believes
in "dispensations". That is true in the general sense.
You said that was too general and wanted to narrow
it down and so I did that with you.
>> You claimed they are "pretribbers". But the truth is,
>> there are Dispy's who are mid and post-tribbers!
>
> Some may be.
And that was my point! Yet you kept disputing it
and had no reason to. All I said was that in order
to be a person who follows basic Dispensationalism
(narrowing it down at your request), one must hold
a premillennial belief, but one does not have to be
pretribulational. That's all I said and you kept arguing
with it and yet, you quoted the very same thing! :)
> But I don't want to be associated with a system
> that is largely *pretribulational.* And there are
> other teachings predominant in dispensationalism
> I also don't want to be associated with, such as
> their type of distinction between the Church and
> Israel. I can't say I fully understand their position.
> So I've decided to set aside the confusion and
> simply draw upon my own understanding of
> the Scriptures.
>
>> It is correct. It is what Futurists as a whole do.
>> Or at least 99.9% of them anyway. :)
>
> You're here talking about the distinction between
> Israel and the Church. We would have to deal
> with the subject in detail before discussing whether
> most futurists agree with it or not.
No we wouldn't. It's simply a fact of Futurism.
>>> As I said, the definition you provided was
>>> extremely general and did not break up
>>> the church age into ages.
>
>> Yes, I know, the seven churches of Revelation.
>> They become "ages", even though they really
>> did exist. :)
>
> The definition you provided said zero about
> the seven churches of Revelation. You believe
> in an OT dispensation and a NT dispensation.
> Therefore you are a kind of "dispensationalist,"
> based on the definition you gave me.
The concept of "dispensations" is not about just
two covenants. All believers know that much. :)
And you are mislabeling a "covenant" as being
a "dispensation", in order to try to point your
finger at me and take focus off of you.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
What part of 'THOU SHALT NOT' don't you understand?
Ike E 1/2/2010
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:epWdnQeGpcJKAsXW...@wavecable.com...
>
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
>
>> Now put it all together. You are confusing the two!
>> Even your own quote shows that it is about being
>> premillennial, not pretrib!
>
> Darby's system was pretrib. Dispensationalism is built upon Darby's
> system.
More rhetorical bullshit from randy to try and prove (falsely) that his
"system" is somehow different from the rest of the ridiculous
Dispensationalist system.
Dispensationalism comes in THREE FORMS--pre-, mid-, and post-trib--but it's
STILL Dispensationalism, you ass.
(Not that it matters, since it is a failure in ALL its forms: Prophecy is
not fulfilled in lines or segments--it's fulfilled in STATEMENTS, i.e.
iterations.)
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:44cjl5lvvd8hedmm6...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Excellent rebuttal Vince, and unlike Dave, it is all scriptural.
Not exactly.
God will deal with Israel that "was" as it "was," and half will be cast
down.
God will deal with Israel that "is" as it "is," and half will be brought up.
Then there will be the Israel "yet to come," starting with the 144,000
Israelite-Christians, who will come from both, but be neither.
Unfortunately, the idiot Dispensationalists teach that God will be going
backward instead of forward, i.e. the Israel that is "yet to come" has
little or nothing to do with the Israel that "was" or "is" beyond the fact
that it will come from its "father" and "mother" (which was the great
mystery to which Paul referred).
Ike
Ike E 1/2/2010
[snip]
> I.e., the church was lost for 1800 years after Christ!
No, the "Church" is an intermediate step between what "was" and what "is to
come."
So neither one of you--Preterinsists or Dipsysensationalists--knows what he
or she is talking about.
Ike
bear
<xhermanei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"bear" <tevan...@charter.net> wrote in message
>news:44cjl5lvvd8hedmm6...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Excellent rebuttal Vince, and unlike Dave, it is all scriptural.
>
>Not exactly.
>
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.
[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
>
>Ike
>
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>> The context is not just Israel, but what
>> portion of it would be saved and Paul
>> said it would be "a remnant".
>
> So? God could supernaturally save 100%
> of the jews today and STILL only a "remnant"
> would be saved because 2000 years of jews
> have died in sin.
>
> You didn't think of THAT, did you? :)
So it doesn't matter what it says. Your job
is to make whatever excuses are necessary
to save your doctrine (which you don't do).
Thank you for proving my point.
>> They're not "translating it". They're "interpreting it"
>> according to their preassumed doctrine.
>
> as are you!
So instead of admitting that what you said is incorrect,
you try to pile me into the blame, as if that somehow
erases yours/theirs, when in reality, all you did was
say we're all guilty.
> I quoted those verses at FACE VALUE
No, you took it as "and then", when it says,
"and in this manner". You toss out common
language structure and try to blame me.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Christianity is the only army that shoots its own
wounded soldiers.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>> The context is not just Israel, but what
>> portion of it would be saved and Paul
>> said it would be "a remnant".
>
> So? God could supernaturally save 100%
> of the jews today and STILL only a "remnant"
> would be saved because 2000 years of jews
> have died in sin.
>
> You didn't think of THAT, did you? :)
So it doesn't matter what it says. Your job
is to make whatever excuses are necessary
to save your doctrine (which you don't do).
Thank you for proving my point! (:
I'm sorry Vince. I don't mean to be rude.
You really are a nice guy and I do like you.
But really Vince. This is the best you could come up
with, when faced with what the actual wording of the
passage is and also combining it with Romans 9:27?
The best you could do, when you realized that your
argument was out of gas, was to pretend that Paul
was including dead Jews??? Really?!?
I mean, do you have any idea how many passages
you violated by saying that?!
Primarily, then one in Hebrews, which was obviously
written to Jews, that says:
"And as it is appointed for men to die once,
but after this the judgment." - Hebrews 9:27
Your response plainly smacks of desperation and a lack
of desire to face the truth and to bow to God's word,
tossing your doctrine out when it doesn't fit the Bible.
You could at least toss *that part* of your doctrine out,
Vince. But gee, I guess you feel that you are so wise
and have obtained so much Godly, Biblical knowledge,
that you cannot possibly be wrong about even a little
tiny piece of your doctrine and that now you are so far
above us mere mortals, that you get to pit Scripture
against itself and still be Godly and right! (:
The truth is, God is not going to go back and save Jews
who died unsaved, which would mean that He would
have to save them after they have died, which means
that Hebrews 9:27 would be a lie!
And don't try to NOW claim that you were not saying that
already dead Jews would later be saved after their dead,
because they would had to have died unsaved, if they are
to be saved in the future and they are already dead!
And of course, being the Futurist that you are and knowing
that all Futurists are liars when it comes to their doctrines
and trying to protect them instead of being honest enough
to admit this *plain and simple fact*, you will now, instead,
try to come up with some way that you can claim (even
though you'll know it's a lie) that it happens anyway and
that it somehow doesn't violate Hebrews 9:27, even though,
as we both know, you always read Hebrews 9:27 just as it
plainly reads and that Vince, is despicable of you to try to
do to God's word and we both know that! Disgusting! (:
The Bible says that ONLY A REMNANT of the Jews would
be saved (Rom 9:27)! The context of Romans is the entire
letter, not just two verses, minus the one word in those
verses that messes up your doctrine (it does not say "then",
promoting the time line you believe in, but rather, says "so",
meaning "in this manner" and it therefore says, "and in this
manner" and not, "and then")!
The Bible says that the "manner" described is:
1) A remnant of the Jews.
2) The fulness of the Gentiles
(whatever amount that is).
3) "And in this manner, all Israel shall be saved."
I.e., 1 + 2 = 3, Vince and nothing you can say
will change that and your "it's also talking about
the Jews who died" violates Hebrews 9:27!
And one last thought, Vince...
Bringing in the dead Jews does not help your
argument anyway, since it doesn't change the
fact that Paul said, "only a remnant is saved"!
In other words, your response made no sense! (:
> I quoted those verses at FACE VALUE!
Really? So tell us Vince... No, better yet, please
point out to us where it says... "and don't forget
to count the dead Jews who dies unsaved (they
would had to have died unsaved, if they are to
be saved in the future and they are already dead)
as part of those being saved"? Where does it say
that AT FACE VALUE, VINCE?!?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you
is determinism; the way you play it is free will.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> Darby's system was pretrib.
> Darby was pre-trib. That's different than saying
> that Dispensationalism is pre-trib. You can argue
> all day long, but the fact is, that Dispensationalists
> must be pre-millennial. Most are pre-trib, but there
> are mid and post-trib Dispensationalists.
Fact no. 1: Dispensationalism does not equal Premillennialism.
Premilliannialism preexisted Darby and his dispensationalism by many
centuries.
Fact no. 2: Most dispensationalists are pretribulationist. Darby, who
founded dispensationalist theology, was a pretribulationist.
Fact no. 3: Although a number of dispensationalists may be either
postribulationist or midtribulationist, it is their alliance with Darbyism
that makes them a dispensationalist.
I don't wish to be confused with a theological system that is associated
with Darby, nor with a system that is heavily pretribulationist. It is
better to be associated with premillennialism. Otherwise I will have to do
more than defend premillennialism. I will have to defend everything Darby
taught as well, and I don't wish to do that.
>> Dispensationalism is built upon Darby's system.
>> And Darby's system contained a prophetic
>> emphasis that I may not completely agree with.
> Yes, it was built upon his belief system. And I am
> glad that you have brought this up and stated
> these things as fact, because it is very revealing
> when it is looked into and now not you, nor any
> other Futurists who comment, can deny these facts
> and pretend that I am making stuff up about this. :)
How is distinguishing my own beliefs from Darby a proof of what you're
trying to argue?
> You see, this proves that Dispensationalism has
> only been around since the early 1800's. And
> that means that it is a new belief system and
> therefore cannot be what Jesus and the
> Apostles taught. Furthermore, it also means
> that the church was lost for 1800 years and
> no one knew what they were talking about.
That certainly applies to his pretribulational theology. It is a new
theology that is relatively recent in history. It cannot therefore be viewed
as traditional or biblical.
> Darby's system of "dispensations" is based on failures.
> This is another thing that Dispensationalists don't seem
> to know and when they find out, they don't wasn't to
> acknowledge. They attack and insult me when I post
> the facts about this, claiming I am working for evil,
> but the fact is, that is what Darby, who invented
> this system taught! Each "dispensation" ending,
> is ending because of its failure. And since God
> is the one in control, it is God's failure that is under
> discussion here! And in fact, the whole concept of
> Jesus' first appearance on Earth under the Darby
> system is the concept that He came to set up an
> Earthly kingdom, but was rejected and killed and
> therefore, failed in His mission. Look it up yourself.
The idea of *human failure* is neither unbiblical nor irrational. On the
contrary, the Bible and the Law of Moses establish the reality and
inevitability of human failure. Christ came, in fact, to resolve the problem
of human failure.
On the other hand, I fully agree with you that Dispensationalism is not
something I care to justify. It seems to render more complex concepts that
are otherwise fairly simple to understand. Man has been sinful from the
beginning. So God chose to begin His plan of redemption with one nation, the
nation Israel. He gave them a Law to show them their sin, so they could know
what it is they have to overcome. But it was Christ who alone could enable
them to both overcome and obtain eternal life. Whereas all nations rise and
fall, the Israeli nation has fallen, awaiting a time when it can rise again
as a Christian nation. I believe this will happen one day, in accordance
with biblical prophecy.
As I've told you in another place, I don't believe Jesus failed when he said
he would bring his Kingdom and died. He did not promise an immediate
inception of his eschatological Kingdom on earth. He only promised that he
would once again take up his rule, after his resurrection, and rule
mysteriously in the lives of his adherants. The Kingdom of God is not yet
here on earth, but rules mysteriously in the world of men by spiritual
means. One day the Kingdom will actually come to earth and bring an end to
the rule of evil. This will happen at Christ's 2nd coming, as promised in
the NT Scriptures.
> ....As I said, Darby
> had ideas that were the opposite of what the
> Apostles taught and here it is clearly shown,
> since this means what Paul said must be false,
> if Darby is right, since Paul said that both Jew
> and Gentile are part of the church and that it
> doesn't matter if one is Jew or Gentile and that
> both partake from the same spiritual blessings!
Yes, this is part of the reason I wish to be distinguished from
dispensationalism. I do see God's plan among the Jews as being synonymous
with His plan among the Gentiles. The only thing I have in common with
dispensationalists here is that I do believe in the ultimate
Christianization of the State of Israel. Nevertheless, salvation for the
Jews actually began at the very beginning of the church, just after Jesus
rose from the dead.
>> So I prefer to be called a premillennial futurist
>> and not a Darbyite, or Dispensationalist.
> And yet, you claim to believe what Darby did
> and defend that. So why try to separate yourself?
Because I can defend premillennialism, but I don't wish to defend
*everything* that Darby taught.
>> Dispensationalists are indeed premillennialists.
>> But they are certainly more than that
> But they do not have to be pre-tribbers.
Postribulational Darbyites wish to defend both postribulationism and
Darbyism. I don't. Like you, I wish to emphasize the joint salvation of Jew
and Gentile in the current age. I would place the salvation of the *nation*
Israel on the backburner. Darbyites tend to emphasize futurism and this
future national salvation. That is the opposite of what Jesus said to do
when asked about this future salvation of Israel. He said our focus should
be on preaching the gospel--not on the times and seasons reserved to the
Father (Acts 1).
> Okay, so you wish to disassociate yourself from Darby.
> But you have a problem here, since you do believe in
> dispensations and that is a Darby invention. :)
You also believe in dispensations, as I said before. As a Christian you
*must* believe in an OT dispensation and in a NT dispensation. Yet that
doesn't make you a dispensationalist, does it?
> And that was my point! Yet you kept disputing it
> and had no reason to. All I said was that in order
> to be a person who follows basic Dispensationalism
> (narrowing it down at your request), one must hold
> a premillennial belief, but one does not have to be
> pretribulational. That's all I said and you kept arguing
> with it and yet, you quoted the very same thing! :)
Again, dispensationalism does not equal premillennialism. A
dispensationalist wishes to ally with Darby's teachings--not just
premillennialism or pretribulationism. But inasmuch as there is a strong
emphasis on pretribulationism and too strong an emphasis on futurism, I wish
to disassociate myself from dispensationalism. I don't like to emphasize the
distinction between Jewish and Gentile salvation.
I would appreciate it if you would summarize your arguments and make them a
little briefer. I have lots to do and lots of other problems to deal with.
Otherwise, thankyou for your time.
randy
Ike E 1/24/2010
[snip]
> The truth is, God is not going to go back and save Jews
> who died unsaved, which would mean that He would
> have to save them after they have died,
Actually, that's PRECISELY what He is going to do, only the term is
"Israelites," not "Jews."
ALL Israel (that is actually Israel) will be gathered in the Resurrection,
and sent back to the beginning.
Those who deviate from the plan will become the "demons" who will be cast
down (making way for the branches of Gentile believers to be grafted in).
> which means
> that Hebrews 9:27 would be a lie!
The entire book of Hebrews IS A LIE: It was written by a Gospel-corrupting,
Essene-influenced, heretic (probably an Ebionite), long after Revelation was
written (as that is who the author was ripping off and corrupting).
[snip]
> The Bible says that ONLY A REMNANT of the Jews would
> be saved (Rom 9:27)!
First, it's not "Jews," moron; it's "Israelites."
Second, the "Remnant" to which Jesus, Paul, and John are the 144,000
Israelite-Christian evangelists set to come IN THE END OF THE AGE (which
you, being an idiot, says doesn't exist) TO PREACH THE WHOLE WORD to the
world ONE LAST TIME before God pours out His wrath, clears the decks, and
reveals the Kingdom of God IN THE EARTH.
[snip the rest of the idiotic argument]
Ike
Ike E 1/24/2010
[snip]
> Fact no. 1: Dispensationalism does not equal Premillennialism.
> Premilliannialism preexisted Darby and his dispensationalism by many
> centuries.
> Fact no. 2: Most dispensationalists are pretribulationist. Darby, who
> founded dispensationalist theology, was a pretribulationist.
> Fact no. 3: Although a number of dispensationalists may be either
> postribulationist or midtribulationist, it is their alliance with Darbyism
> that makes them a dispensationalist.
Fact no. 4: THE WHOLE THING was wrong FROM THE BEGINNING.
<chuckle>
> I don't wish to be confused with a theological system that is associated
> with Darby, nor with a system that is heavily pretribulationist.
Doesn't matter: Your eschatology and theology is AS SCREWED UP AS HIS, and
you don't know what you're talking about any more than HE does.
Wrong premise, wrong forms, wrong assumptions.
<chuckle>
> It is better to be associated with premillennialism. Otherwise I will
> have to do more than defend premillennialism. I will have to defend
> everything Darby taught as well, and I don't wish to do that.
Bub, you can't defend ANY of it--yours OR theirs--because you're OPERATING
UNDER THE WRONG PREMISES TO BEGIN WITH.
JESUS and the boys spoke MULTIPLISTICALLY, NOT in lines or segments.
Jesus even SAID that, plainly, but you idiot's don't listen...
Mt 17:10-13
And [Jesus'] disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that
Elias must first come?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and
restore all things; [FUTURE TENSE, LITERAL]; But I say unto you That Elias
is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever
they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
[PRESENT TENSE, FIGURATIVE]
Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.
SAME AS IN DANIEL.
Antiochus Epiphanes = FIGURE for antichrist.
Jason the traitorous priest = FIGURE for the false prophet.
Judas Maccabeus = FIGURE for Christ at His second coming.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why you moron's DON'T PAY ATTENTION
TO WHAT HAPPENED IN HISTORY, AND WHAT THE WORD SAYS ABOUT THAT, other than
to do so WOULD PROVE THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE
FIRST PLACE (which is the REAL driving force here--YOUR EGOS).
Ike
Terry Cross
wrote:
> "Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in messagenews:6omol59p1gha6k36u...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The truth is, God is not going to go back and save Jews
> > who died unsaved, which would mean that He would
> > have to save them after they have died,
>
> Actually, that's PRECISELY what He is going to do, only the term is
> "Israelites," not "Jews."
>
> ALL Israel (that is actually Israel) will be gathered in the Resurrection,
> and sent back to the beginning.
>
> Those who deviate from the plan will become the "demons" who will be cast
> down (making way for the branches of Gentile believers to be grafted in).
>
> > which means
> > that Hebrews 9:27 would be a lie!
>
> The entire book of Hebrews IS A LIE: It was written by a Gospel-corrupting,
> Essene-influenced, heretic (probably an Ebionite), long after Revelation was
> written (as that is who the author was ripping off and corrupting).
So this is how Ike comes by his unusual doctrines -- pruning. He's
one book short of a Bible. Or one brick short of a load. Or one card
short of a deck.
And Ike has his own "Marcion" problems.
TCross
vince garcia
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:09:08 -0800, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>
> >> The context is not just Israel, but what
> >> portion of it would be saved and Paul
> >> said it would be "a remnant".
> >
> > So? God could supernaturally save 100%
> > of the jews today and STILL only a "remnant"
> > would be saved because 2000 years of jews
> > have died in sin.
> >
> > You didn't think of THAT, did you? :)
>
> So it doesn't matter what it says. Your job
> is to make whatever excuses are necessary
> to save your doctrine (which you don't do).
>
> Thank you for proving my point! (:
>
> I'm sorry Vince. I don't mean to be rude.
> You really are a nice guy and I do like you.
No offense taken, dave. I know you are zealous on the issue
>
> But really Vince. This is the best you could come up
> with, when faced with what the actual wording of the
> passage is and also combining it with Romans 9:27?
>
> The best you could do, when you realized that your
> argument was out of gas, was to pretend that Paul
> was including dead Jews??? Really?!?
I didn't say he was of necessity including them. I said that 2000 years
of jews have died in their sins, and if every one alive today were to be
saved right now, it would still be true that only a "remnant" had been
saved because 2000 years of jews before that went to hell in unbelief.
And it would be true.
I don't see the remnant thing as problematic to start with. And as i
noted, chapter 11 is not a continuation of chapter 9, but is dealing
with some new issues:
1 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.
THIS is what chapter 11 is now going to deal with--that God HAS NOT cast
away the jews. The rest of the chapter must be viewed with that
understanding, reiterated again in verse 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?
15:
For if the casting away of THEM
Who THEM? The jews
be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of THEM be,
but life from the dead?
Who THEM? The jews
>
> I mean, do you have any idea how many passages
> you violated by saying that?!
>
> Primarily, then one in Hebrews, which was obviously
> written to Jews, that says:
>
> "And as it is appointed for men to die once,
> but after this the judgment." - Hebrews 9:27
>
> Your response plainly smacks of desperation and a lack
> of desire to face the truth and to bow to God's word,
> tossing your doctrine out when it doesn't fit the Bible.
>
> You could at least toss *that part* of your doctrine out,
> Vince. But gee, I guess you feel that you are so wise
> and have obtained so much Godly, Biblical knowledge,
> that you cannot possibly be wrong about even a little
> tiny piece of your doctrine and that now you are so far
> above us mere mortals, that you get to pit Scripture
> against itself and still be Godly and right! (:
>
> The truth is, God is not going to go back and save Jews
> who died unsaved,
I didn't mean that, dave. You must have misunderstood what I said. I
said 2000 years of jews (--but for a few in each generation--) have died
in sin, which follows that they went to hell.
They ain't gonna be saved. For them, it;s over
which would mean that He would
> have to save them after they have died, which means
> that Hebrews 9:27 would be a lie!
>
> And don't try to NOW claim that you were not saying that
> already dead Jews would later be saved after their dead,
> because they would had to have died unsaved, if they are
> to be saved in the future and they are already dead!
>
> And of course, being the Futurist that you are and knowing
> that all Futurists are liars when it comes to their doctrines
> and trying to protect them instead of being honest enough
> to admit this *plain and simple fact*, you will now, instead,
> try to come up with some way that you can claim (even
> though you'll know it's a lie) that it happens anyway and
> that it somehow doesn't violate Hebrews 9:27, even though,
> as we both know, you always read Hebrews 9:27 just as it
> plainly reads and that Vince, is despicable of you to try to
> do to God's word and we both know that! Disgusting! (:
If i meant that, I'd agree. But you've been here long enough to know
I've told rob hundreds of times that jews who deny christ die in their
sins and go to hell. And yes, that includes jews who died in the
holocaust (along with any of my own relatives who died in the geneocide
IF they weren't saved Christians). No way do they get a second chance
>
> The Bible says that ONLY A REMNANT of the Jews would
> be saved (Rom 9:27)! The context of Romans is the entire
> letter, not just two verses, minus the one word in those
> verses that messes up your doctrine (it does not say "then",
> promoting the time line you believe in, but rather, says "so",
> meaning "in this manner" and it therefore says, "and in this
> manner" and not, "and then")!
>
> The Bible says that the "manner" described is:
>
> 1) A remnant of the Jews.
>
> 2) The fulness of the Gentiles
> (whatever amount that is).
>
> 3) "And in this manner, all Israel shall be saved."
>
> I.e., 1 + 2 = 3, Vince and nothing you can say
> will change that and your "it's also talking about
> the Jews who died" violates Hebrews 9:27!
Let's look at the verse again:
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
Can we agree ISRAEL is the jews? I'll assume yes.
, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
UNTIL here can mean what I think you're saying: "Until all the gentiles
destined to be saved will be saved, and then Christ will return"
Or, it could mean "Until all the gentiles destined to be saved will be
saved, and then the blindness will end, the jews will come to their
fullness in Christ, and THEN Christ will return"
Now based on the IN THIS MANNER, you seem to take the first view. fine
I take the second based on what i see tha chapter saying in 1, 11, 12,
15, and what is said AFTER the IN THIS MANNER PART:
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
Who is THEY? The jews!
are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, THEY are
beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Who is THEY? The jews!
So _I_ see the whole chapter not talking about the jews being cast away
so God can save the gentiles and then end His dealings with fallen
humanity; i see it predeicting their eventual salvation
We just ain't gonna agree on this issue.
But at least we do agree on all sorts of other stuff
>
> And one last thought, Vince...
>
> Bringing in the dead Jews does not help your
> argument anyway, since it doesn't change the
> fact that Paul said, "only a remnant is saved"!
>
> In other words, your response made no sense! (:
I don't blame you for saying that. But you misunderstood what i meant. I
meant 100% of jews alive TODAY, not 100% of jews thruout history
>
> > I quoted those verses at FACE VALUE!
>
> Really? So tell us Vince... No, better yet, please
> point out to us where it says... "and don't forget
> to count the dead Jews who dies unsaved (they
> would had to have died unsaved, if they are to
> be saved in the future and they are already dead)
> as part of those being saved"? Where does it say
> that AT FACE VALUE, VINCE?!?
it don't, and i don't claim that
Ike E 1/24/2010
"Terry Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:576f90e0-5266-479f...@c4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Gee, that's funny, because the early church writers BEFORE the council of
Nicea had the same opinion as me...
********
The Muratorian Canon (c. 170 as it refers to Pius I, Bishop of Rome, 142-157
AD)
Accepted books
"The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. The fourth. is that
of John. the acts of all the apostles. As for the Epistles of Paul. To the
Corinthians first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, to the
Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, to the Thessalonians sixth, to
the Romans seventh. once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians.
one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy.
Disputed books
"to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in
Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion. the epistle of Jude and two
of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John. and [the book of]
Wisdom. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us
are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the
Shepherd very recently. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it
cannot be read publicly to the people in church."
********
Origen (c. 185-253)
One finds in [Origen's writings] citations of all the books of the New
Testament, though he expressed reservations concerning James, 2 Peter, and
2nd and 3rd John.
Origen on Hebrews
Throughout Origen's writings he quotes from the Epistle to the Hebrews more
than 200 times, and in the vast majority of his references he is content to
attribute it to Paul as its author. But near the close of his life (after
245 CE), where Origen is speaking as a scholar, he admits that the tradition
of its authorship is wholly uncertain.
In addition he makes the following statements concerning the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in his Homilies upon it: 'That the character of the diction of the
Epistles entitled 'To the Hebrews' has not the apostle's rudeness in speech,
who acknowledged himself to be rude in speech (2 Cor. 6:6), that is, in
style, but that the Epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction,
will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style.
But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the Epistle are
admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle,
this also everyone who carefully examines the apostolic text will admit'.
Further on he adds, If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are
those of the apostle, but the style and composition belong to some one who
remembered the apostle's teachings and wrote down at his leisure what had
been said by his teacher. Therefore, if any church holds that this Epistle
is by Paul, let it be commended for this also. For it is not without reason
that the men of old time have handed it down as Paul's. But who wrote the
Epistle in truth, God knows. Yet the account that has reached us [is
twofold] , some saying that Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote the Epistle, and
others, that it was Luke, the one who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.
********
Irenaeus' (2nd century AD - c. 202) Canon [by citation],
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts of the Apostles
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
1 Peter
1 John
2 John
Revelation to John
No Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3rd John, James, or Jude
********
Eusebius' (c 263-339) Canon
"The first church historian, Eusebius, circa AD 303-325, applied the term
"Antilegomena" ["writings spoken against"] to the Epistle of James, the
Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the
Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews."
Quote from Eusebius:
"Among the disputed writings, [ton antilegomenon] which are nevertheless
recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of
Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second
and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another
person of the same name. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also
the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter,
and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called
Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the *Apocalypse of John,
if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class
with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted
Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the
disputed books."
(*Eusebius marginalized the Apocalypse of John in this list, but accepted it
in another.)
********
Cheltenham/Mommsen Canon
The Cheltenham Canon, c. 365-390, is a Latin list that was discovered by the
German classical scholar Theodor Mommsen (published 1886) in a 10th century
manuscript (chiefly patristic) belonging to the library of Thomas Phillips
at Cheltenham, England. The list probably originated in North Africa soon
after the middle of the 4th century.
It has a 24-book Old Testament and 24-book New Testament which provides
syllable and line counts but omits Hebrews, Jude and James, and seems to
question the epistles of John and Peter beyond the first.
*******
Diatessaron and Syriac Church
"By the fifth century the Syrian Bible, called the Peshitta, became
formalized somehow into its present form: Philemon was accepted, along with
James, 1 Peter and 1 John, but the remaining books are still expelled (2
John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation ). After the Council of Ephesus
in 431 A.D., the Eastern Syrian church, in turn divided between the
Nestorian and the Syriac Orthodox Church, broke away, and retained this
canon of only 22-books (the Peshitta) up to the present day."
*******
Conclusion
There are many other canons, especially the ones in the Latin tradition,
which adheres to the canon as found in the Catholic Bible.
But the fact remains that the church fathers by and large rejected Hebrews,
2 Peter, 2nd & 3rd John, James, and they had mixed feelings about
Revelation, although the consensus was that Revelation was authentic.
********
Now, what the hell any of this has to do with Marcion's heresies is beyond
me.
What validity an accusation coming from a heretic who advances the
ridiculous notion that Jesus was AGAINST JUDAISM is even MORE of a mystery.
(Guess that opening just slammed shut in your face, didn't it?)
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:09:08 -0800, vince garcia
>> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> >> The context is not just Israel, but what
>> >> portion of it would be saved and Paul
>> >> said it would be "a remnant".
>> >
>> > So? God could supernaturally save 100%
>> > of the jews today and STILL only a "remnant"
>> > would be saved because 2000 years of jews
>> > have died in sin.
>> >
>> > You didn't think of THAT, did you? :)
>>
>> So it doesn't matter what it says. Your job
>> is to make whatever excuses are necessary
>> to save your doctrine (which you don't do).
>>
>> Thank you for proving my point! (:
>>
>> I'm sorry Vince. I don't mean to be rude.
>> You really are a nice guy and I do like you.
>
> No offense taken, dave. I know you are
> zealous on the issue
Okay, good. :)
>> But really Vince. This is the best you could come up
>> with, when faced with what the actual wording of the
>> passage is and also combining it with Romans 9:27?
>>
>> The best you could do, when you realized that your
>> argument was out of gas, was to pretend that Paul
>> was including dead Jews??? Really?!?
>
> I didn't say he was of necessity including them.
> I said that 2000 years of jews have died in their
> sins, and if every one alive today were to be
> saved right now, it would still be true that only
> a "remnant" had been saved because 2000 years
> of jews before that went to hell in unbelief.
But you would still be including them in the total
number of Jews and there's no way around that.
> I don't see the remnant thing as problematic
> to start with.
So Paul says only a remnant would be saved,
but that's not a problem for a doctrine that
says that all Jews will be saved? Huh? :)
> And as I noted, chapter 11 is not a continuation
> of chapter 9, but is dealing with some new issues:
>
> 1 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.
>
> THIS is what chapter 11 is now going to deal with
> --that God HAS NOT cast away the jews. The rest
> of the chapter must be viewed with that
> understanding, reiterated again in verse 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?
>
> 15:
>
> For if the casting away of THEM
>
> Who THEM? The jews
>
> be the reconciling of the world, what shall
> the receiving of THEM be, but life from
> the dead?
>
> Who THEM? The jews
I tell you Futurists how you constantly end up
having to pit one passage against another.
Instead of being able to reconcile verses,
you end up having to act like something that
you're shown can't be true, because gee,
look at this one over here. You just won't
admit that's what you're doing. But it is.
Now here we notice that you want to separate
out 9:27, as if it's a whole different conversation.
But it isn't and it's all in the same letter, about
the same theme.
Now why is it that what I said matches what
the words say and both sections fit together
nicely, while your doctrine puts them at odds
with each other and the best you can do,
is to try to separate them and make sure
not to talk about one, while talking about
the other? And why is it that in your belief
system, you don't really talk about 9:27 at all?
As we both know, you might read the chapter,
but you don't spend any time on that verse
and just kind of blow right by it, knowing
as you do, that it's not really something
that you want to deal with.
Now you can try to make it sound as if
it is talking about every Jew that ever lived,
or about every Jew alive, but if Paul is indeed
talking about some future generation, as you
believe, then the Jews that he's talking about
won't even be alive to be saved anyway.
The people of Haiti aren't forgotten by the
world right now, but they weren't all saved.
And notice, that I said "they". Now how does
that word mean that none died and weren't
saved, Vince?
>> The truth is, God is not going to go back and save Jews
>> who died unsaved,
>
> I didn't mean that, dave.
Yes, I saw. :)
>> The Bible says that ONLY A REMNANT of the Jews would
>> be saved (Rom 9:27)! The context of Romans is the entire
>> letter, not just two verses, minus the one word in those
>> verses that messes up your doctrine (it does not say "then",
>> promoting the time line you believe in, but rather, says "so",
>> meaning "in this manner" and it therefore says, "and in this
>> manner" and not, "and then")!
>>
>> The Bible says that the "manner" described is:
>>
>> 1) A remnant of the Jews.
>>
>> 2) The fulness of the Gentiles
>> (whatever amount that is).
>>
>> 3) "And in this manner, all Israel shall be saved."
>>
>> I.e., 1 + 2 = 3, Vince and nothing you can say
>> will change that and your "it's also talking about
>> the Jews who died" violates Hebrews 9:27!
>
> Let's look at the verse again:
>
> 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
>
> Can we agree ISRAEL is the Jews? I'll assume yes.
Again you put the word "then" in there,
when it doesn't say "then".
You admit that it says "and in this manner",
but then add "and then" anyway.
> We just ain't gonna agree on this issue.
>
> But at least we do agree on all sorts of other stuff
Not all Gentiles were to be saved and not all Jews.
And that is my point. The Dispy doctrine says that
all Jews will be saved. The Bible doesn't.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"There are two kinds of men who never amount to much:
those who cannot do what they are told and those who
can do nothing else." - Cyrus H. Curtis
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> Darby's system was pretrib.
>>
>> Darby was pre-trib. That's different than saying
>> that Dispensationalism is pre-trib. You can argue
>> all day long, but the fact is, that Dispensationalists
>> must be pre-millennial. Most are pre-trib, but there
>> are mid and post-trib Dispensationalists.
>
>Fact no. 1: Dispensationalism does not equal Premillennialism.
So you want to pretend that "Darbyism = pretrib",
but not premillennialism, even though the Darby
system require premillennialism, but not pretrib.
Gotcha.
> Premilliannialism preexisted Darby and his
> dispensationalism by many centuries.
If true, so what? That does not mean that it is
not part of Darbyism.
> Fact no. 2: Most dispensationalists are pretribulationist.
I have already agreed with that. I said it, remember? :)
> Darby, who founded dispensationalist theology,
> was a pretribulationist.
I also agreed with that.
> Fact no. 3: Although a number of dispensationalists
> may be either postribulationist or midtribulationist,
> it is their alliance with Darbyism that makes them
> a dispensationalist.
That is what I said. And Darby is the one who stated
these "dispensations".
> I don't wish to be confused with a theological system
> that is associated with Darby, nor with a system that
> is heavily pretribulationist.
Okay, but what do you call someone who believes
in the dispensations that Darby states?
Besides, I didn't call you a "Darbyist". :)
--
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-contradictory in their beliefs,
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>Fact no. 1: Dispensationalism does not equal Premillennialism.
> So you want to pretend that "Darbyism = pretrib",
> but not premillennialism, even though the Darby
> system require premillennialism, but not pretrib.
I'm not pretending anything. Darbyism does not equal premillennialism. I
pointed out to you elsewhere that George Eldon Ladd is not considered a
dispensationalist, even though he is a premillennialist.
>> Premilliannialism preexisted Darby and his
>> dispensationalism by many centuries.
> If true, so what? That does not mean that it is
> not part of Darbyism.
Premillennialism cannot be part of a system that did not yet exist. As I
said, premillennialism and Darbyism are not the same thing, even if they
share some of the same beliefs.
>> Fact no. 2: Most dispensationalists are pretribulationist.
> I have already agreed with that. I said it, remember? :)
It is therefore essential for a postribulationist like myself to avoid
association with Darbyism, which conveys to people that dispensationalists
are largely pretribulationists.
>> Fact no. 3: Although a number of dispensationalists
>> may be either postribulationist or midtribulationist,
>> it is their alliance with Darbyism that makes them
>> a dispensationalist.
> That is what I said. And Darby is the one who stated
> these "dispensations".
And I don't commit myself to Darby's system of dispensations, whether or not
I agree with some of them. I don't want to be associated with a system with
emphases that I disagree with.
>> I don't wish to be confused with a theological system
>> that is associated with Darby, nor with a system that
>> is heavily pretribulationist.
> Okay, but what do you call someone who believes
> in the dispensations that Darby states?
A dispensationalist. And I'm not one.
> Besides, I didn't call you a "Darbyist". :)
Thankyou! Don't call me a dispensationalist either. I don't believe in
dispensations the way Darby defined them. I believe in an Old Testament and
a New Testament, period. That's Christian--not dispensationalist.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>>Fact no. 1: Dispensationalism does not equal Premillennialism.
>
>> So you want to pretend that "Darbyism = pretrib",
>> but not premillennialism, even though the Darby
>> system require premillennialism, but not pretrib.
>
> I'm not pretending anything. Darbyism does not
> equal premillennialism.
That's not what I said and you're dishonestly twisting
my words again.
I said that Darbyism requires premillennialism, since
premillennialism is indeed, as I proved to you, part
of the Darby system of Dispensationalism. That's
not the same thing as what you are now trying to
twist my words into, to avoid admitting that anyone
else but you can be right.
>>> Premilliannialism preexisted Darby and his
>>> dispensationalism by many centuries.
>
>> If true, so what? That does not mean that it is
>> not part of Darbyism.
>
> Premillennialism cannot be part of a system that
> did not yet exist.
Yes, it can. Your premise means that nothing new
can ever be invented, if it contains anything that
existed before.
So much for the light bulb. According to your logic,
it doesn't exist as a new invention, because glass,
metal and electricity existed before one was made.
> As I said, premillennialism and Darbyism are not
> the same thing, even if they share some of the
> same beliefs.
I didn't say they were the same thing. You're lying.
Show me where I said they were the same thing.
Quote me saying exactly that and not your twisted
interpretation of what I said and then you claiming
that you proved it, as is your norm!
And I don't say that you're "mistaken", because
no one is mistaken that often and no one who
can put the words together like this, is that stupid
for me to believe it's one innocent mistake after
another, Randy!
>>> Fact no. 2: Most dispensationalists are pretribulationist.
>
>> I have already agreed with that. I said it, remember? :)
>
> It is therefore essential for a postribulationist like myself
> to avoid association with Darbyism, which conveys to
> people that dispensationalists are largely pretribulationists.
Largely does not equal exclusively. You cannot say
that you have proved that you are not a Dispensationalist,
because you are not a pretribber, since there are
Dispensationalists who are posttribbers, since the
Darby system does not require one to be a pretribber,
as you first claimed and as I disproved.
That has nothing to do with what you actually are.
It simply means that your premise that you have
proved that you are not a Dispensationalist because
you are a posttribber is a false one.
>>> Fact no. 3: Although a number of dispensationalists
>>> may be either postribulationist or midtribulationist,
>>> it is their alliance with Darbyism that makes them
>>> a dispensationalist.
>
>> That is what I said. And Darby is the one who stated
>> these "dispensations".
>
> And I don't commit myself to Darby's system of dispensations,
> whether or not I agree with some of them. I don't want to be
> associated with a system with emphases that I disagree with.
Since Darby's system does not require pretrib,
you don't get to disassociate yourself from it,
based on that. There re posttribbers who are
just as much devout "Darby Dispy's", who are
indeed postribbers.
>>> I don't wish to be confused with a theological system
>>> that is associated with Darby, nor with a system that
>>> is heavily pretribulationist.
>
>> Okay, but what do you call someone who believes
>> in the dispensations that Darby states?
>
> A Dispensationalist. And I'm not one.
What are the differences, only as far as the dispensations
themselves are concerned?
>> Besides, I didn't call you a "Darbyist". :)
>
> Thank you! Don't call me a dispensationalist either.
Well, that depends. :)
> I don't believe in dispensations the way Darby
> defined them.
So prove that. What do you disagree with as far as
"Darby dispensations" are concerned?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; That
whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."
- Thomas Jefferson
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> I said that Darbyism requires premillennialism, since
> premillennialism is indeed, as I proved to you, part
> of the Darby system of Dispensationalism. That's
> not the same thing as what you are now trying to
> twist my words into, to avoid admitting that anyone
> else but you can be right.
Let's be clear about what we mean, and leave out all of the unnecessary
accusations. I'm not at war with you. I'm just trying to explain what my
problem is with you calling me a "dispensationalist." I don't want to be
called a dispensationalist because that tends to associate me with Darbyism.
I don't agree with all of Darby's teachings, so I don't want to be called a
"dispensationalist."
Yes, I'm a premillennialist. But that does not make me a dispensationalist,
since premillennialism by far preceeds the appearance of dispensationalism
in history.
> Since Darby's system does not require pretrib,
> you don't get to disassociate yourself from it,
> based on that. There re posttribbers who are
> just as much devout "Darby Dispy's", who are
> indeed postribbers.
I don't agree. Darbyism *requires* pretribism, and Darbyism equals
dispensationalism. Some postribbers can be called dispensationalists only
with qualifications. They are nonDarbyist dispensationalists, who accept
Darby's concept of the division between Israel and the Church, and yet
disagree with him over pretribulationism.
Now, if definitions evolve such that people define these words differently,
then I will make amends accordingly. For now, I'm using terms as *I* define
them. I know what Darby believed and taught. He taught premillennialism and
pretribism, and he taught a unique separation of salvation for Israel and
for the Church. And Darby was the father of these collective teachings which
we call "dispensationalism." I am therefore not *this kind of*
dispensationalist, if you can call me a dispensationalist at all. But if you
do call me a dispensationalist, I'd like to know what, beyond
premillennialism, I agree with Darby on? Darby does not own the title of
"father of futurists." So in identifying me as a "futurist," you are *not*
identifying me as either a Darbyite or a dispensationlist.
I hope this makes my position clear. I don't want to be associated with a
system of interpretation that is largely associated with pretribulationism.
I don't want to be associated with a system that separates the salvation of
Israel and the Church. I believe salvation for both the Church and Israel is
for *today.* The inevitability of Israel becoming a Christian nation at some
point in the future does not alter the fact one bit that salvation for
Israel is *today.* Political statehood and national restoration is another
matter entirely. It is just the result of a long, tedious process of
evangelical outreach not just towards Israel but towards all nations.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>
>> Since Darby's system does not require pretrib,
>> you don't get to disassociate yourself from it,
>> based on that. There re posttribbers who are
>> just as much devout "Darby Dispy's", who are
>> indeed postribbers.
>
> I don't agree. Darbyism *requires* pretribism
You are playing word games. We're not talking
about "Darbyism", but the system he invented,
which is Dispensationalism. And that system
requires premillennialism, not pretribulationism.
"Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical
tradition and theology based on a biblical
hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically
successive dispensations or periods in history in
which God relates to human beings in different
ways under different Biblical covenants. As a
system dispensationalism is rooted in the writings
of John Nelson Darby and the Brethren Movement.
The theology of dispensationalism consists of a
distinctive eschatological end times perspective,
as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism
and most hold to a pretribulation rapture."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
Now if you want to go any further, you're going
to have to stop playing around and get honest.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"An earthly kingdom cannot exist without any quality
of persons. Some must be free, some surfs, some
rulers, some subjects." - Martin Luther
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I don't agree. Darbyism *requires* pretribism
> You are playing word games. We're not talking
> about "Darbyism", but the system he invented,
> which is Dispensationalism. And that system
> requires premillennialism, not pretribulationism.
The point is, Darby's dispensationalism was largely pretribulational! The
tribulation period is assumed by Darby to be sort of the turning point from
the Church back to Israel. I don't agree with that. And I don't agree that
there are distinct periods of salvation for both the Jews and the Gentiles.
*Today* is the day of salvation. Nations may, in the future, become
Christian nations. But Jews need not wait for salvation until the whole
nation of Israel becomes a Christian nation.
And please leave the incitement out of it. I am not playing games. I'm am
attempting, with all my might, to communicate with you.
> "Dispensationalism is a Protestant evangelical
> tradition and theology based on a biblical
> hermeneutic that sees a series of chronologically
> successive dispensations or periods in history in
> which God relates to human beings in different
> ways under different Biblical covenants. As a
> system dispensationalism is rooted in the writings
> of John Nelson Darby and the Brethren Movement.
> The theology of dispensationalism consists of a
> distinctive eschatological end times perspective,
> as all dispensationalists hold to premillennialism
> and most hold to a pretribulation rapture."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
> Now if you want to go any further, you're going
> to have to stop playing around and get honest.
You just proved my point. Dispensationalism is largely pretribulationist. I
don't want to be associated with such a system, nor do I want to be
associated with Darby's concept of different dispensations for Israel and
the Church.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>>> I don't agree. Darbyism *requires* pretribism
>
>> You are playing word games. We're not talking
>> about "Darbyism", but the system he invented,
>> which is Dispensationalism. And that system
>> requires premillennialism, not pretribulationism.
>
>The point is, Darby's dispensationalism was largely pretribulational!
Largely is not the same as "requires". You claimed
that pretrib is "required". Admit it.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The only place you find chaos in the universe
is in mans' heart." - Vume
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>The point is, Darby's dispensationalism was largely pretribulational!
> Largely is not the same as "requires". You claimed
> that pretrib is "required". Admit it.
I am not *requiring* that dispensationalism be pretribulational!!!! I am
simply saying I do not wish to be associated with a system that is normally
associated with pretribulational theology. And I'm also saying I don't want
to be associated with Darbyism, because I don't look at the age of the
Church and the age of Israel being two separate ages (dispensations). But
I've probably done enough explaining about this. I'd like to move on.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>>>The point is, Darby's dispensationalism was largely pretribulational!
>
>> Largely is not the same as "requires". You claimed
>> that pretrib is "required". Admit it.
>
>I am not *requiring* that dispensationalism be pretribulational!!!!
Yes, you are.
RANDY: Darbyism *requires* pretribism.
Fact: What Darby invented was Dispensationalism.
Fact: You are dishonestly trying to pretend that
Darby and Dispy are two different things.
Facts: You don't have the integrity to admit that.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Romans 13:11-2
11) And that, knowing the time, that NOW
it is high time to awake out of sleep:
for NOW is our salvation nearer than when
we believed.
12) The night is far spent, the day is
AT HAND: let us therefore cast off the
works of darkness, and let us put on
the armor of light.
bear
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 23:30:18 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave"
>>randy
>>>>The point is, Darby's dispensationalism was largely pretribulational!
>>
>>> Largely is not the same as "requires". You claimed
>>> that pretrib is "required". Admit it.
>>
>>I am not *requiring* that dispensationalism be pretribulational!!!!
>
>Yes, you are.
>
>RANDY: Darbyism *requires* pretribism.
>
>Fact: What Darby invented was Dispensationalism.
>
>Fact: You are dishonestly trying to pretend that
> Darby and Dispy are two different things.
>
>Facts: You don't have the integrity to admit that.
>
>--
>
>Pastor Dave
>
>The following is part of my auto-rotating
>sig file and not part of the message body.
>
>The Last Days were in the first century:
>
You say the "last days were in the first century", Ezekiel says there
will be a battle in the "last days", a coalition of nations against
Israel, so, when was this battle fought Dave? If you cannot provide
an answer, then, it makes sense that your Preterist doctrine is false
and you admit to such by ignoring the question. Bawaahahahahaha
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."
>Romans 13:11-2
>
>11) And that, knowing the time, that NOW
>it is high time to awake out of sleep:
>for NOW is our salvation nearer than when
>we believed.
>12) The night is far spent, the day is
>AT HAND: let us therefore cast off the
>works of darkness, and let us put on
>the armor of light.
>
Unfortunately, Dave is blinded to the context of the verses he quoted.
13:11. Expressing divine love is a Christian's constant
responsibility, but it is especially crucial in understanding the
present time (lit., "knowing the season"). Paul was not referring to
time in general but to the end-time and to the imminent return of the
Lord Jesus. It is a time, therefore, for spiritual vigilance and
industriousness: wake up from your (some mss. have "our," which
conforms to the context) slumber (cf. Eph. 5:14; 1 Peter 5:8). This
need for alertness is because our salvation (ultimate or final
salvation realized at the return of the Savior; cf. Rom. 8:23; Heb.
9:28; 1 Peter 1:5) is nearer now than when we first believed (cf.
James 5:8). Each passing day in the faith brings final salvation and
deliverance closer.
13:12. Paul considered the time of Christ's return and the
consummation of salvation for believers (v. 11) as the start of a new
day. The present time, while Christ is absent (John 14:2-3; Acts 1:11)
and Satan is at work (2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2), is described as the night
(cf. 2 Peter 1:19). Since "the day" is almost here, Paul urged his
readers to put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of
light. Christians are soldiers in a conflict who need to be alert and
equipped for battle (Eph. 6:10-17; 1 Thes. 5:8). Upright,
Christ-honoring living is often referred to as being in the light
(John 12:36; Eph. 5:8, 14; Col. 1:12; 1 Thes. 5:5; 1 John 1:7; 2:10).
13:13-14. In verse 13 Paul repeated his exhortation of verse 12,
changing the figure from warfare to lifestyle. He charged, Let us
behave decently, as in the daytime (lit., "day"). Crime, violence, and
wickedness are associated with darkness and the night (John 1:5;
3:19-20; 8:12; 12:35, 46; Eph. 5:8, 11; 6:12; 1 Thes. 5:7; 1 Peter
2:9; 1 John 1:5-6; 2:9, 11). Perhaps this contrast was suggested to
Paul by his phrase "deeds of darkness" (Rom. 13:12). At any rate the
activities and attitudes he listed-orgies and drunkenness � sexual
immorality and debauchery � dissension and jealousy (cf. Gal.
5:19-21)-are certainly "deeds of darkness." It is interesting that
Paul linked jealousy with immorality. Such actions and attitudes have
no place in a Christian's life. He belongs to "the light"; these deeds
and thoughts belong to the darkness.
A Christian's lifestyle must be pure and holy, especially in view of
Christ's approaching return (cf. Rom. 13:11-12; 1 John 3:3). The
secret to living chaste lives is for Christians to clothe themselves
with the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. "put on," Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). At
salvation they were "clothed with Christ" (Gal. 3:27), so they should
conduct themselves accordingly. Also the secret includes not thinking
about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature (lit., "and do
not make forethought [pronoian] for the flesh [sarkos; cf. Rom. 8:3-5,
8-9, 12-13] for lusts"). For a Christian to plan out specific ways to
gratify his sinful nature is wrong and out of bounds.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-).
The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Bear
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>I am not *requiring* that dispensationalism be pretribulational!!!!
> Yes, you are.
> RANDY: Darbyism *requires* pretribism.
> Fact: What Darby invented was Dispensationalism.
> Fact: You are dishonestly trying to pretend that
> Darby and Dispy are two different things.
We are just arguing over definitions. I distinguish between Darbyism and
dispensationalism perhaps differently than you do. Darbyism reflects just
what Darby believed. Dispensationalism is a system invented by Darby that
contains basic beliefs that others may hold to without believing everything
Darby believed in.
You seem to have a basic problem bringing everything into a matter of
pronouncing moral judgments on people. I find that unfortunate.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>>I am not *requiring* that dispensationalism be pretribulational!!!!
>>
>> Yes, you are.
>> RANDY: Darbyism *requires* pretribism.
>> Fact: What Darby invented was Dispensationalism.
>> Fact: You are dishonestly trying to pretend that
>> Darby and Dispy are two different things.
>
> We are just arguing over definitions.
No. I am stating fact. You are trying to dodge
said facts.
> I distinguish between Darbyism and dispensationalism
> perhaps differently than you do.
There is no distinguishing between them.
Darby invented Dispensationalism and
that is the end of that conversation.
Now if you do not wish to be labeled as
a Dispensationalist, then tell me what
distinguishes you from a Dispensationalist.
Hint: You're not pretrib doesn't cut it,
since being pretrib is not required.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Purchase not friends by gifts; when thou ceasest to give,
such will cease to love." - -Thomas Fuller
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> We are just arguing over definitions.
> No. I am stating fact. You are trying to dodge
> said facts.
Leave the moral judgments to God, Dave.
>> I distinguish between Darbyism and dispensationalism
>> perhaps differently than you do.
> There is no distinguishing between them.
> Darby invented Dispensationalism and
> that is the end of that conversation.
It may be the end of your conversation, but it isn't the end of mine.
Darbyism and Dispensationalism is distinguished in the way I use the terms.
You may not like that. Too bad!
> Now if you do not wish to be labeled as
> a Dispensationalist, then tell me what
> distinguishes you from a Dispensationalist.
> Hint: You're not pretrib doesn't cut it,
> since being pretrib is not required.
I have already told you multiple times. Dispensationalism involves Darby's
view of different dispensations for the Church and Israel. I do not agree
with this. Dispensationalism as a system can historically branch out and
incorporate nonDarbyite views, ie can include his basic dispensational
system, distinguishing between the ages of Israel and the Church, and yet
not perfectly conform to Darby's teachings in less-important areas, such as
pretribulationism. But it is agreed by all that for Darby pretribulationism
was important. And so, I want to separate myself from dispensationalism for
two reason, because of the tendency to include pretribulational belief, and
also because of the idea of two distinct ages for Israel and the Church.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> We are just arguing over definitions.
>>
>> No. I am stating fact. You are trying to dodge
>> said facts.
>
> Leave the moral judgments to God, Dave.
If I kill someone and you say that I killed someone,
that is not a moral judgment. It is a statement
of fact.
>>> I distinguish between Darbyism and dispensationalism
>>> perhaps differently than you do.
>>
>> There is no distinguishing between them.
>> Darby invented Dispensationalism and
>> that is the end of that conversation.
>
> It may be the end of your conversation, but it isn't
> the end of mine.
It is the end, period. It is a fact, period.
> Darbyism and Dispensationalism is distinguished
> in the way I use the terms.
Making stuff up and pretending it's true,
doesn't make it true.
>> Now if you do not wish to be labeled as
>> a Dispensationalist, then tell me what
>> distinguishes you from a Dispensationalist.
>> Hint: You're not pretrib doesn't cut it,
>> since being pretrib is not required.
>
> I have already told you multiple times.
No, you keep claiming that because you're
not pretrib, that means you can't be a
Dispensationalist, but that is not true,
since that isn't required to be one.
> Dispensationalism involves Darby's view of
> different dispensations for the Church and
> Israel. I do not agree with this.
That is different than; "I'm not pretrib"
and is an acceptable argument for not
being a Dispensationalist.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Why is it that our memory is good enough to retain the
least triviality that happens to us, and yet not good
enough to recollect how often we have told it to the
same person?" - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> Dispensationalism involves Darby's view of
>> different dispensations for the Church and
>> Israel. I do not agree with this.
> That is different than; "I'm not pretrib"
> and is an acceptable argument for not
> being a Dispensationalist.
I am against being associated with dispensationalism for *two* reasons. One,
I do not hold to two separate dispensations for the Church and Israel. And
two, I do not wish to be associated with pretribulationism, which *most*
dispensationalists hold to.
Pretribulationism goes hand in hand with the belief in two ages for the
Church and Israel. That's because it's believed that after the Rapture of
the Church takes place, a transition is made during the Tribulation period
from the Church to Israel. I don't believe in this transition period from
the Church to Israel during the Tribulation period, and I don't in fact
believe in two separate dispensations for the Church and Israel.
I am a futurist, but I am *not* a dispensationalist. The current age is the
age of the Church and Israel. Israel is in a period of national decline,
just as many Christian nations are going through a period of national
decline.
One day I do believe that Christian nations will be restored, along with
Israel, which will become a Christian nation. But this is not to be
separated from today's Christianity. It is not to be an initiation of a
renewed temple of animal sacrifices. It is not to place Israel on a pinnacle
above Christian nations.
On the contrary, all of the promises formerly given to Israel are also given
to the Church. We are now one people, even if there are many nations
represented in this one people. The nation Israel will have promises
fulfilled to it by becoming a Christian nation. However, salvation remains
more a matter of personal discipleship than national membership. It is
important for a nation to become a Christian nation. But it's much more
important for individuals in a nation to personally become disciples of
Christ. Only in that way can we really be assured that we are saved.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
This thread has gotten way too long. :)
I have responded and have started a new thread
in doing so.
Please see: "Darby and Dispensationalism"
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing,
no wind is favorable." - Seneca
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>>
>> randy
>>
>>> Dispensationalism involves Darby's view of
>>> different dispensations for the Church and
>>> Israel. I do not agree with this.
>
>> That is different than; "I'm not pretrib"
>> and is an acceptable argument for not
>> being a Dispensationalist.
>
> I am against being associated with dispensationalism
> for *two* reasons. One, I do not hold to two separate
> dispensations for the Church and Israel.
It isn't "two separate dispensations for Israel
and the church". That is an incorrect statement.
It is two separate futures of salvation, through two
different methods, while these same Christians are
hypocrites, since they claim that there is only one
way to be saved and yet, also claim that there are
two ways to get saved. One for the Christians and
a completely different one for Jews.
Imagine this (and you can deny any piece or part
of what follows, but it is absolutely true, since logic
does not allow for any other conclusion and frankly,
your attempts to deny what is true and then pretend
that you have cause to, will not fly)...
Futurists claim that (and let's carefully and without
bias, examine the details of the methods that they
inevitably claim, since all of these are their claims
and shown below is the obvious conclusions that
one must logically draw from them and watch
how their claims are self-contradictory, even
on their face!):
1) There is only one way to be saved.
2) That Christians get saved by Christ and Jews
get saved by the Law.
3) The Anti-Christ takes over the world through
a world treaty (promising world peace and
people think him their "savior") and then turns
on everyone and becomes a world dictator
and also a third temple gets built.
Then later, Jesus boots out the "The Anti-Christ"
and then takes "His seat" in this new, third temple.
But of course, after a supposed "1,000 years of
peace with the world is grateful for gets used to
generation after generation", for some reason,
Jesus either:
a) Gets booted back off the throne by this
"Anti-Christ", which means that even
Satan cannot defeat Christ, that this guy,
who isn't even as powerful as Satan,
boots Christ off His Earthly throne and
takes over the world.
b) After 1,000 years, Jesus says, "Psyche!"
and leaves the temple and flies off up
into Heaven and leaves the world to its
own devices again and it all goes to pot,
since not everyone was saved anyway.
And the eerily funny part about this is that if
not everyone was saved, then they still have
their same old "sin nature" and therefore,
He had to be forcing them to be nice, which
means He had to strip them of their free will
for that period of time and thus, the only
logical conclusion is that He made robots out
of them, since no matter how nice peace is,
man has proved that he is not capable of
keeping it unless forced to (and no amount
of Futurist double talk is going to change
that fact) and which isn't real peace anyway
and this means that Jesus never offered real
peace anyway, but rather, a "no choice people,
you're a robot, get over it" simulation of peace!
4) Since the temple serves only one purpose, which is
for animal sacrifices for sin (which is why it was built
in the first place), here we end up with Jews going
to perform their animal sacrifices for sin, with Jesus
sitting on the throne in this very same temple, for
1,000 years, which means that it cannot be denied
that they are denying Jesus, since one cannot say
that they acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Savior
(the one time sacrifice) and then go and perform
animal sacrifices for sins. This means that Jews
are going in to perform animal sacrifices for sin,
while Jesus sits there, waving them on in, since
this is supposed to be a 1,000 year era (millennium)
of "world peace".
5) This means that for 1,000 years, not everyone
is saved (by the Futurists own admission) and
since that would mean that they still have their
evil sin natures, they are being forced to be
peaceful by Jesus. Now of course the Futurist
gets upset here, because they have a different
set of rules for Jews, because Futurists worship
them (when a Jew walks by, watch a Futurist
stop (or at least slow way down) and just about
drop to their knees in awe of them). And the
Futurist really and actually believes that a Jew
who denies Christ, is somehow closer to God
than a Gentile Christian, who is saved! (:
Furthermore, when one runs across a "Messianic
Jew" (born again Jew), who of course, also may
still observe the festivals and such, those same
Futurist Christians actually start to attack them!
You see, the Futurist would rather that the Jews
not be saved (many of them anyway) and that
instead, they "get saved" only later, after the
supposed "1,000 year reign of Christ"!
And these Futurists are so in awe of the Jews,
that (for just one example), I have read their
statements, one of which actually said that
when these Jews end up sacrificing animals
for sin, that this particular "Christian" (reflecting
the thoughts of almost all Futurists) said that
when that day came, if he was still alive, that
he would stand outside the temple, with his
arms raised, praising God for doing this! Huh?!
They prefer this "not be Jesus to get to the Father"
method for Jews, even though it would mean that
they are indeed basically spitting in Christ's face!
How so? Simple! Because in order for them to do
that while Christ is on this "earthly throne", it means
that Jews are entering to the temple and Jesus is just
"waving them on" to perform those very same animal
sacrifices for sin, which means that Jesus Himself is
saying that His sacrifice was useless for Jews, even
though they are the ones that He spoke to, saying
to accept Him or die in their sins! But now, the Jews
don't have to and Jesus will say that! What?! Huh?!
Please!!!
6) So what do we end up with? Jesus, sitting on
this "earthly throne", while the Jews still ignore
Him as the Messiah, who was to return and yet,
their standing there looking right at Him! Hello?!?
Their premise is a ridiculous one, at best! (:
And btw, looking at #1, what difference is there
between "Christ" and "The Anti-Christ"?
Think about it... They both take over this supposed
"third temple" and they both rule the world and they
both bring "world peace" and they both leave their
"throne" and leave man hanging.
So again, realistically, what is the difference there???
No Futurist can honestly answer this question and keep
a straight face, that reflects their moral certitude and
surety regarding their doctrine, because they's never
had to face such a question before, because for all
of their "Christian lives", they've gotten a pat on the
back for everything they said, no matter how far fetched,
because what they said included;
"Hey, it's all about us, today! That's why God wrote
the Bible! To show us, today, that the prophecies
of the Bible are being fulfilled before our very eyes!"
And so, the only ones left to have them look at their
doctrines critically, are those who do not believe in
their doctrine and they hate anyone who does that
and these days, in this country at least, anyone who
does this is vehemently (personally) attacked,
which reflects on the lack of credibility of the Futurist,
since one who is sure of their doctrine, would not
need to be so angry, but rather, would prove their
doctrine to be the truth!
And the Historists are not capable of doing this,
because while they claim to refute the Futurist
doctrine, all they really do Randy, is claim that
the prophecies have been fulfilled and then say
that they will be fulfilled again! So the bottom
line with them, is that while they acknowledge
that the prophecies have been fulfilled, they
don;t like that idea and see no use for the Bible
if it's not still somehow all about them today,
just like the Futurists!
Well, guess who that leaves to make Futurists
take an honest look at what their doctrines
really mean when they are followed through
to their logical conclusion? <lol!>
But anyway, again I ask the question...
What is the difference between the two, considering
that they both end up playing the same role, with
this Anti-Christ being even more powerful than Christ,
since Christ must take their free will and force peace,
while this Anti-Christ has everyone willingly follow him!
Except for the Jews of course, which Jesus allows to
spit in His face by performing animal sacrifices for
their sins, instead of kneeling before Him, since as
even you admit, not everyone will be a believer at
and during the time of this supposed "1,000 year
reign of peace".
See more on why I say this, later in this message. :)
Back to the "two dispensations" thing, to recap quickly,
Dispyism says that for Israel, it is a physical thing in
which they are saved by the Law and not Christ and
for Christians, they are saved by Christ and not the Law.
As I said, the problem with this, is that JESUS SAID that
NO ONE comes to the Father, but BY HIM and He said
that very, very, simple and clear statement to THE JEWS!
So any argument by the Futurists to the contrary (and
the Jews being saved by the Law is what they preach)
fails on it face! And yet, the Futurists, when they see
this fact, simply don't care and then lie and claim that
they do not hold their doctrine above the Scriptures! (:
And this is what I'm talking about, when I say that
Futurists claim to place the Bible above their doctrines,
but when it comes down to it and I force them (which
I do by my words) to really examine what their doctrines
state and they find this out (see above), then, all of the
sudden (no matter how polite I have been to them and
yes, I have tried the "very polite and reasonable" route
many times before), I am then "Satan", or "a worker of
Satan"; I am "not a believer", I "don't believe the Bible
at all" (which is an interesting statement, considering
that they know that I just showed them that they are
the ones that are hardly following the Scriptures) and
they cannot seem to find a way to respond to what I
actually say to them (quoting from the Bible) and simply
refuse to deal with it and their response sums up to be
nothing more than insults and more Futurists piling in
to do the same and shout out messages of approval for
those tactics, because it's me saying it and to try to change
the subject as quickly as possible, like, for example, when
Bear keeps coming in posting about Ezek 38-39, doing so
for two years now, even though I answered it a long time
ago shortly after he asked me about it and even though
the truth is, that even if I didn't have an answer for that,
it wouldn't make my whole doctrine wrong and his whole
doctrine right, but would merely mean that I would have
to do more research, that's all.
Now you may try to claim that my responses to you
consist of the same thing, because I call you a liar
so often. But that would be:
1) You avoiding the subject, just like them.
2) I do believe that you are a liar, especially since
you keep snipping my on point responses, Randy.
3) When I call you a liar, I am not seeking to avoid
the subject and in fact, paste in again what you
snipped and demand that you get on track and
stop trying to avoid the subject, which means
that no, I am not using their tactics and no,
I don't run around calling them "Satan"! :)
Anyway, you get the point. They personally attack,
when it is clear from the Scriptures that Jesus told
THE JEWS that NO ONE comes to the Father, except
through Him, period, end of story, over and out!
But they would rather imply (denying that they do it);
"The Bible be damned, when it gets in the way!"
So the bottom line is, whether it is right or wrong for me
to "insult you" that way, what you do not see me doing,
is what they're doing, which is to insult someone to AVOID
the subject, since what I do, is post a statement that says
that you're a liar who is seeking to avoid the subject and
I then paste back in the subject at hand and ask you once
again to deal with it, on point, instead of snipping it out.
And that is what you're doing again, now. What (see below)
"you wish" to be associated with, is irrelevant, if it is what
you're specifically preaching. However, I can understand
where you're coming from on it (just your reasoning failed),
because I don't like to be called a "Preterist", since people
don't seem to be bright enough to figure out that that
wouldn't mean that I believe every statement made
by a Preterist! And furthermore, I do not specify any
of the particular doctrines within Preterism as my own,
just because I believe that all of the prophecies have
been fulfilled. For example, I believe in the five basic
points of Calvinism, but simply do not agree with every
single thing that Calvin himself taught.
So I can understand how you don't wish to be associated
with something in that way, but where our argument had
started, was with you making the incorrect statement that
you cannot be considered a Dispy, because you are not
a pretribber, when being a Dispy does not require that,
but rather, requires premillennialism, which you do indeed
believe in.
Now had you said, "I am not a Darbyist!", then okay. :)
> And two, I do not wish to be associated with
> pretribulationism, which *most* dispensationalists
> hold to.
Yes, most do. But then you could have said that you
are not pretrib. And when a strictly Darby Dispy said
that you are not a Dispy, because you are not pretrib,
then you could have educated them on the subject. :)
> ...two dispensations
Dispyism has seven major "dispensations", so that is
incorrect. So while this is true, Dispensationalism also
requires that one conclude that Jesus actually failed
in His mission (even though Futurists refuse to admit
to it, especially here, because it is too easy to type
and say ridiculous things, even knowing it to be such)!
It is part of Dispensationalist doctrine (whether you
want to admit it or not) period, that we believe that
it was NOT Jesus' intent to be crucified! And this,
even though Jesus said He knew what was to come
and that it was for that purpose that He came!
So much for Futurists placing Scripture over their
doctrines! That's a lie, period! (:
Dispensationalism states that Jesus was rejected and
then crucified and so, as a result OF THAT FAILURE,
He rose and that means that there is only one possible
and inescapable conclusion! And that is that "Jesus
failed in His Earthly mission and so, that Earthly mission
was postponed and salvation through His blood is the
consolation prize for Gentiles!".
Think I'm kidding? That is the inevitable conclusion!
And Darby even stated that is what it meant and said
that Jesus' Earthly mission HAD FAILED!
Where do you think the idea of Jews being saved
through the Law came from, even after Christ
appeared, died and rose, Randy??? Think about
it long and hard! Really! :)
Let's say that His Earthly mission had succeeded.
What would that have meant, especially to the
doctrine of Dispensationalism? Simple! :)
It would have meant that He would have been crowned
"King of Israel/Judea" and that He would have taken a
physical throne right then and there and that the Jews
would have gone to war against Rome right then and
of course, would have won and what we would now be
dealing with, is the same Mosaic, temple system, with
Gentiles having to convert to Judaism under the Law,
just like in the OT (remember, there could be no NT
if Christ had not been crucified and risen), since under
the Law, to be one of "God's people", one had to convert.
So this leaves out whole New Testament from ever existing,
since it is about "the Gospel of peace", which obviously
could not include a war against Rome and since Jesus'
crucifixion would never have taken place.
It also makes the crucifixion and resurrection something
that was not intended and so, was not the result of "God's
plan for mankind", but rather, as the consequence and
consolation prize of Jesus failing to accomplish what God
sent Him here to do!
And of course, that means that instead of being praised
in Heaven for His work here on Earth, He must have been
disciplined for failing to complete His mission, even though
He had all of that power, which means that He certainly
had the power to defeat Rome!
So here we have not only Jesus failing, but also
failing either:
1) Intentionally, since He did not use His power
(God would not have sent Him to be a king on
Earth AND give Him all that power, if He was
not supposed to use it for that purpose and no,
kindness and mercy would not be acceptable,
since God sent Him to win and remember,
Jesus clearly stated that He could have an
army of angels, just by calling for them)!
2) Because He wasn't bright enough to do the job
and failed due to His own stupidity. And no,
I am not committing sacrilege by saying that,
but rather, I am only stating what one of the
possibilities of this would have been if the Dispy
doctrine is followed through to it logical end.
This is what the Futurists believe, without even
knowing that what they believe in (the Dispy
system and even basic Futurism) means that
Jesus came to set up and Earthly kingdom
and failed and even though Jesus said from go,
that His Kingdom is WITHIN us and cannot be
seen with the eye (even if you deny it, Jesus
said it and NEVER ONE, NOT ONCE, NOT EVER,
did JESUS HIMSELF say; "But later, it will be."!
The Futurist refuses to acknowledge that and so,
that leaves only that Jesus failed and failed badly!
> I am a Futurist, but I am *not* a dispensationalist.
You are not a Darbyist, that is for sure. But your
statement of "two different dispensations for the
church and for Israel" is an inaccurate statement.
Dispyism teaches two different methods of salvation
for those two, but not different "ages" for them.
They both exist within the same age at that point.
Furthermore, your claim also implies that you are
saying that you do not believe that there is a difference
between the two, as far as their paths are concerned,
but in truth, you do believe that, since you place them
into two different categories, when the Bible teaches
that "Israel" is "the church" ever since Christ and also
teaches that if a Jew wishes to be saved, then he/she
must come to Christ on his/her knees and acknowledge
Him as Lord and Savior and that if they don't, then they
will die and be judged and there are no second chances!
Now of course, Futurists try to make stuff up as they go
and claim that maybe they'll be given a chance after the
resurrection. Now how desperate is that?!? Please!!! (:
The truth is, the Bible says that:
"It is appointed unto men once to die
and then the judgment." - Heb 9:27
But you see, the Futurists (and I believe that you were
one of them, although I can't remember for sure if it
was you who were one of the ones who said it) are so
desperate when they see this, that their hypocrisy comes
shining through at that point, as they claim that Hebrews
should not be in the Bible when confronted with this
simple Biblical fact and even though other Scriptures
from other NT writings back this idea up!
So they claim to hold Scripture (from cover to cover) up
and above their own personal doctrines and yet, when
this is shown to them, then, all of the sudden, they deny
their own claim and one of the most basic and extremely
important rules of the faith, tossing it out the window,
to hang on to their own personal doctrine and then
of course, with their words still quoted in the thread,
they try to deny that they even did it at all!
> One day I do believe that Christian nations will be
> restored, along with Israel, which will become a
> Christian nation. But this is not to be separated
> from today's Christianity.
You believe whatever you want to. But the fact is,
that the Bible does not say this and your concern
seems to be with what is on this Earth, instead of
who and what is in Heaven and that is truly sad! (:
Futurists claim to look vertically, not horizontally and yet,
they do the exact opposite and to them, including you,
if the Bible is not all about them and their day, or at least
a future they will live to see, then to them, as yes, I have
proved many, many times, the Bible is nothing more than
a waste of paper and ink! (:
> It is not to be an initiation of a renewed temple
> of animal sacrifices. It is not to place Israel on
> a pinnacle above Christian nations.
If a temple is built, then that is what it will be used for,
since that is the purpose of the temple and without that,
it is nothing more than a waste of stone! Even the
underground of it had its channels built underneath,
to run off the blood and it was (always, meaning for
each temple) consecrated WITH BLOOD, Randy!!!
And why do you think the money-changers were
outside the temple trying to scam the people (see
the story about Jesus overturning the money tables)?
It was because you set up scams where the money is
and outside the temple, they were scamming people
regarding exchanging money to be able to buy their
sacrifices to make at the temple and in selling them
the animals they needed for their sacrifices, because
that Randy, is the purpose of the temple and not
just some "side attraction"! Without the animal
sacrifices for sin, there would be no temple!
> On the contrary, all of the promises formerly given
> to Israel are also given to the Church.
Those promises were fulfilled already and even if
your doctrine of "it has yet to come" were indeed
true, once again you would be adding to the Bible,
since nowhere does it say what you just said about
"the promises to Israel".
Isn't it interesting that you spend so much time
(and all Futurists do) telling me how the promises
to Israel about their land need to finish being
fulfilled, blah, blah, blah and yet, when that
becomes inconvenient for you, now, all of the
sudden, Gentiles are included in those very
same promises?! Huh???
Again Randy, logical conclusions! :)
In order for that to be the case, that would mean
that since God promised them specifically TO ISRAEL,
that in order for the church to inherent them, the
church would have to be part of Israel, period Randy!
And of course, the problem with this doctrine of yours
would be that one of the following two things would
have to be true!:
1) There would have to be a "national Israel"
within "Israel" and so you have "two Israels"
now and that is nowhere near what the
Bible says about "Israel", nor near what
you claimed about national Israel.
2) Being part of "national Israel" would mean
the church going back to the Law, since
that is what Israel did.
P.S.: Your idea about "two dispensations" would be
of better use to you, if placed them as follows:
1) First (OT days), "Israel = national Israel",
just as the Bible says.
2) Second, since Christ, "Israel = the church",
both Jew and Gentile, just as the Scriptures
say is true.
And note the Scriptures that support this idea
(quoted below), ESPECIALLY PETER'S!!!
Note here, that Paul said "There is...", showing that
it was already true at that instant that he wrote this!
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave
nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are
all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
So why do Futurists today try to apply a difference
where there is none?! And while you may try to
show me some other passage that does not actually
say the opposite of this very clear and simple statement
by Paul, all that would show, is that you think that
there is a statement in the NT that is the opposite
and that means that you are saying that the Bible
contradicts itself and that your method of rebuttal
is to pit the Bible against itself!
Once again, logical conclusions, Randy! :)
And you Futurists do this all the time, not seeming
to ever get it through your heads, that pitting the
Bible against itself does not win your argument for
you, but rather, only shows that you believe that
it contradicts itself and therefore, if it did, then
the argument would be moot anyway! :)
But it doesn't and so here we are! :)
Anyway, here's the next Scripture...
"Do not lie to one another, since you have put off
the old man with his deeds and have put on the
new man who is renewed in knowledge according
to the image of Him who created him, where there
is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all
and in all." - Col 3:9-11
I think that speaks for itself and the first comment
on the first passage would fit here as well. :)
In this next passage, Peter is talking to the church,
telling them that they (Gentiles) are now the people
of God and using all of the terms that went with
"national Israel".
And this is the problem with Futurists. They spend
all of their time trying to figure out how to make
"horses = tanks" and make it all about them today,
that they are simply completely ignorant of what
it meant to be Jewish back them and how they
would use the following terms and what they would
have meant to a reader who was taught the Gospel
by Jews, who are btw, whom Jesus sent out, remember?!
And gee... Look who Peter calls a "chosen generation"!
Now while you Futurists conjure up the imagined idea
that the NT was written; time stopped and then started
again, only after you, today, opened a Bible for the
first time and so, you apply words found in the NT
like "now" and "you" as if it were just written yesterday,
to you, the truth is, they are meant for whom the letters
were sent to and so, you need to read them in that light!
I mean, just how damned arrogant, egotistical and vain
is it, to pick up a letter that was written to a church that
existed back then (a physically located, actual church,
with actual, real people) and read it as if God had it
sent to them, but was really ignoring them, because
He really meant it for you, today?! Man! (:
"But YOU are a CHOSEN GENERATION, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD,
a HOLY NATION, HIS OWN SPECIAL PEOPLE, that YOU may
proclaim the praises of Him who called YOU out of darkness
into His marvelous light, who once were not a people but ARE
NOW THE PEOPLE OF GOD, who had not obtained mercy but
NOW have obtained mercy." - 1 Peter 2:9-10
And again Randy, in the above passage, Peter is talking to
the church, telling them that they (Jews and Gentiles) are
now the people of God and using all of the terms that went
with "national Israel" and the Mosaic system!
The church is Israel and has been ever since Christ!
Otherwise, it would have been sacrilege for Peter to
use those terms and say those things to them like that!
He would never have used "national Israel" terms,
if it were "national Israel" that is "God's chosen people"!
And read it CAREFULLY! He said TO THEM, that THEY
are "God's own special people"! Now you can try to
put any twist you want on that and play any word game
you want to, but all that is important, is what the impact
would have been when it was said back then by a Jew
who taught from the Jewish OT Scriptures and who said
it to both Jews and Gentiles and not what it means today,
in your Gentile, "I'm ignorant of Jewish thinking and I
simply don't care and don't want to hear it, because my
doctrine is more important to me than the truth of what
Dave just said!" mind, Randy!
> We are now one people
See above. You say this, but you don't really mean it!
If you did, then we wouldn't have had half of the talks
that we did have! :)
So while your belief about this specific thing sounds
like it's respectable, the reality is, when it is examined
and questioned and picked apart, you do tend to say
the opposite of what you originally claim Randy and
that, is the problem, good sir! (:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
God sends us meat, the Devil sends us cooks.
Fred A Stover
> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:41:27 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>> "Pastor Dave"
>>>
>>> randy
>>>
>>>> Dispensationalism involves Darby's view of
>>>> different dispensations for the Church and
>>>> Israel. I do not agree with this.
>>
>>> That is different than; "I'm not pretrib"
>>> and is an acceptable argument for not
>>> being a Dispensationalist.
>>
>> I am against being associated with dispensationalism
>> for *two* reasons. One, I do not hold to two separate
>> dispensations for the Church and Israel.
>
> It isn't "two separate dispensations for Israel
> and the church". That is an incorrect statement.
Satan you're an idiot and a liar. You haven't noticed there are two
testaments?
Christians are free from the condemnation of the law (Rom 8:1).
The circumcision is indebted to the law: "For I testify again to every man
that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law" (Gal 5:3).
--
His,
More @ http://fredstover.angelfire.com/
ho echon ota akoueto Preparing the way of the
Lord
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
(Mark 10:15)
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<)))))))><
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> I am against being associated with dispensationalism
>> for *two* reasons. One, I do not hold to two separate
>> dispensations for the Church and Israel.
> It isn't "two separate dispensations for Israel
> and the church". That is an incorrect statement.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology
"All dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between Israel and the
church, particularly as different groups who receive a different set of
promises. Dispensationalists hold that God provided the nation of Israel
with specific promises which will be fulfilled at a future time in the Jews.
The Church has received a different set of promises than that of Israel.
Most dispensationalists also recognize "membership" overlap between Israel
and the Church. Jewish Christians such as Paul, Peter and John are in this
category. While most do not believe that Israel and the church are mutually
exclusive groups, there is a small minority of past and present
dispensationalists who do. Those who do hold that Israel and the church are
mutually exclusive include some classical dispensationalists and virtually
all ultradispensationalists."
In light of the above dispensationalism does not make sense to me. In
distinguishing between Israel and the Church they are trying to draw a
distinction between a set of individual Christians and one specific nation.
In reality, the Church is made up of many nationalities, including Israel,
and dispensationalists are forced to admit this.
However, the idea that the Church consists only of *individuals,* and not
*nations,* is entirely unbiblical. While it is certainly true that salvation
comes to individuals, the idea of a collective group of saved individuals
constituting a Christian nation is clearly biblical, and is the very reason
for which Israel came into existence. That is, the Church was originally
designed to consist not just of Christian individuals, but also of Christian
*nations.* So Israel *cannot* be excluded from the Church because as a
nation it has every right to be a Christian nation as much as any other
Christian nation in history.
> It is two separate futures of salvation, through two
> different methods, while these same Christians are
> hypocrites, since they claim that there is only one
> way to be saved and yet, also claim that there are
> two ways to get saved. One for the Christians and
> a completely different one for Jews.
I don't believe there are two separate ways to be saved. Nations all get
saved in the same way, by the individuals in those nations becoming
Christians, and then forming a State government centered on Christian
principles.
> Futurists claim that...
> 1) There is only one way to be saved.
> 2) That Christians get saved by Christ and Jews
> get saved by the Law.
I don't know any futurist who believes that, dispensationalist or
nondispensationalist. For the dispensationalist there are two separate
*eras* for Jewish salvation, and they may in the future observe the Law as a
*memorial,* but not as a means of salvation.
> 3) The Anti-Christ takes over the world through
> a world treaty (promising world peace and
> people think him their "savior") and then turns
> on everyone and becomes a world dictator
> and also a third temple gets built.
> Then later, Jesus boots out the "The Anti-Christ"
> and then takes "His seat" in this new, third temple.
> But of course, after a supposed "1,000 years of
> peace with the world is grateful for gets used to
> generation after generation", for some reason,
> Jesus either:
> a) Gets booted back off the throne by this
> "Anti-Christ", which means that even
> Satan cannot defeat Christ, that this guy,
> who isn't even as powerful as Satan,
> boots Christ off His Earthly throne and
> takes over the world.
I think you're very confused about what futurists actually believe. There
are so many different versions all futurists cannot be held to a single
belief. In fact the one you're spelling out doesn't even sound familiar!
I've never heard that one!
Futurists do not tend to believe that Antichrist comes twice, one in the
Tribulation Period and again at the end of the Millennium. He comes only
once, during the Tribulation Period. Christ defeats and destroys him at his
coming, when he comes to set up his Kingdom. Christ's appearance in the
Millennium may consist of a physical presence in Israel as a man, or it may
not. It may only be largely a spiritual presence.
Futurists are more concerned to establish the point at which Christ sets up
his Kingdom on earth. This Kingdom is initially set up in a period when
mankind on earth remains mortal, and previously dead saints are resurrected
and changed into some immortal state in heaven. But the world remains
mortal, and the Kingdom of Christ exists on earth just as any great
Christian empire might. Peace reigns for a thousand years, just as the
Byzantine Empire reigned for a thousand years. Afterwards there is one final
attack from Satan, to prevent the complete collapse of the fallen system of
this world. But Christ's Kingdom finally becomes immortal across the whole
earth, and the corrupt among mankind booted out. Futurism is that simple.
That's what "premillennialism" is.
> Furthermore, when one runs across a "Messianic
> Jew" (born again Jew), who of course, also may
> still observe the festivals and such, those same
> Futurist Christians actually start to attack them!
> You see, the Futurist would rather that the Jews
> not be saved (many of them anyway) and that
> instead, they "get saved" only later, after the
> supposed "1,000 year reign of Christ"!
You are drawing upon the distinctions of what small groups of futurists may
believe--not upon what generally ties all futurists together. I personally
find no fault with ethnic Jews observing customs that are associated with
their own ethnic group. I don't care if they observe Sabbath, just as I
might observe Sunday as a Christian. Messianic Jews, if they are truly
Christians, do not rely upon Sabbath observance for their salvation. And I,
as a nonMessianic Christian, do not rely upon observance of Sunday for my
salvation either.
> And btw, looking at #1, what difference is there
> between "Christ" and "The Anti-Christ"?
> Think about it... They both take over this supposed
> "third temple" and they both rule the world and they
> both bring "world peace" and they both leave their
> "throne" and leave man hanging.
> So again, realistically, what is the difference there???
You make assumptions that need to be dealt with a portion at a time. After
we have separated out the things that truly tie futurists together, and the
things that truly tie dispensationalists together, then we can deal with
some of their more eccentric positions.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> randy
>>
>>> I am against being associated with dispensationalism
>>> for *two* reasons. One, I do not hold to two separate
>>> dispensations for the Church and Israel.
>
>> It isn't "two separate dispensations for Israel
>> and the church". That is an incorrect statement.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology
> "All dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between
> Israel and the church, particularly as different groups who
> receive a different set of promises.
You are mixing the terms. Dispensationalists believing
in a "different set of promises" for national Israel and
the church I agree with.
What I disagreed with, is the idea that there would be
two different "dispensations", as if somehow they would
be in some parallel universe, with time running one way
for one and another way for the other, or as if time
would freeze for one, while it ran for the other.
Besides, that would cause way too many traffic jams. :)
> However, the idea that the Church consists only of
> *individuals,* and not *nations,* is entirely unbiblical.
> While it is certainly true that salvation comes to
> individuals, the idea of a collective group of saved
> individuals constituting a Christian nation is clearly
> biblical, and is the very reason for which Israel
> came into existence.
Yes, but even in Israel, not everyone was a true believer.
In the New Covenant, it is not about nations, but people.
The church is Israel, regardless of where the people
come from.
When the NT talks of nations, it means that people
from all nations will be part of the church. As long
as sin is in the world, there is no way to have a pure
sinless, Christian nation. The U.S. is a good example
of that. It started out as a Christian nation and look
at it now. It is going down the tubes! (:
> That is, the Church was originally designed to consist
> not just of Christian individuals, but also of Christian
> *nations.*
You see, this is the problem with Futurism. A sinless,
physical world of nations is the dream for the future.
But what use would God have for such a thing,
if Christ was going to return and this world will
blow up and a new one be created? Why would
God divide it into nations, which can only breed
differences? And why wouldn't we all have the
same skin color? What use would there be for
different skin colors, to breed differences?
You see, the Futurist view simply makes no sense! (:
> So Israel *cannot* be excluded from the Church
> because as a nation it has every right to be a
> Christian nation as much as any other Christian
> nation in history.
When have you ever heard me say that Israel
should be excluded from the church? When
have I ever said that I have a problem with
Jews being in the church?
The problem here is that you seek to grab
a whole nation, while the Gospel seeks people.
>> It is two separate futures of salvation, through two
>> different methods, while these same Christians are
>> hypocrites, since they claim that there is only one
>> way to be saved and yet, also claim that there are
>> two ways to get saved. One for the Christians and
>> a completely different one for Jews.
>
> I don't believe there are two separate ways to be saved.
I didn't say you did. I said that is what Dispensationalists
believe. Please do not confuse my statements.
> Nations all get saved in the same way, by the individuals
> in those nations becoming Christians, and then forming
> a State government centered on Christian principles.
You mean like the U.S. did? What good did it do?
You Futurists keep seeking the natural, when you
should be looking to the spiritual. And that spiritual
is not going to be found by writing it into some
nation's documents, when nations consist of people,
some who will serve God and some who won't,
as the U.S. proves, when it used to be a Christian
nation and now, seems to be one that is rejecting
Christian values. Now why would anyone want to
lay their hope in that again, as you wish to do?
>> Futurists claim that...
>> 1) There is only one way to be saved.
>> 2) That Christians get saved by Christ and Jews
>> get saved by the Law.
>
> I don't know any futurist who believes that,
> dispensationalist or nondispensationalist.
I know plenty. :) But if you just walk up to one
and say it outright, they will deny it. You have
to get them to examine their belief in a sort of
round-a-bout way and then it will come out.
It is a logical consequence of their belief system.
> For the dispensationalist there are two separate
> *eras* for Jewish salvation, and they may in
> the future observe the Law as a *memorial,*
> but not as a means of salvation.
If they observe the Law, then they must observe
animal sacrifices for sin, especially if a temple is
built, since that is the purpose of the temple;
to perform animal sacrifices. Look at how it
is constructed, even underneath. It must even
be purified with blood from sacrificed animals,
before it can even be used! :)
>> 3) The Anti-Christ takes over the world through
>> a world treaty (promising world peace and
>> people think him their "savior") and then turns
>> on everyone and becomes a world dictator
>> and also a third temple gets built.
>>
>> Then later, Jesus boots out the "The Anti-Christ"
>> and then takes "His seat" in this new, third temple.
>> But of course, after a supposed "1,000 years of
>> peace with the world is grateful for gets used to
>> generation after generation", for some reason,
>> Jesus either:
>>
>> a) Gets booted back off the throne by this
>> "Anti-Christ", which means that even
>> Satan cannot defeat Christ, that this guy,
>> who isn't even as powerful as Satan,
>> boots Christ off His Earthly throne and
>> takes over the world.
>
> I think you're very confused about what futurists
> actually believe. There are so many different
> versions all futurists cannot be held to a single
> belief. In fact the one you're spelling out doesn't
> even sound familiar! I've never heard that one!
I am not confused at all! The truth is, I know
their beliefs better than they do! They simply
do not realize what their beliefs truly mean!
And obviously, neither do you. :)
The above is not what they openly teach.
I am showing you the logical result of what
it is they believe.
Futurists do believe in "The Anti-Christ" coming
and that a temple will be built and that he will
make a seven year treaty of world peace and
that he will "sit in the temple of God, as if he
is God" and that halfway through that treaty,
he will turn and persecute (Christians) and that
Christ will return and sit in the temple and will
reign for 1,000 years and will create a world
peace for that time.
Now, that being said, what does that really mean?
Again Randy, follow it through to its logical result!
Not everyone is saved for that 1,000 years, so then,
Christ must be forcing them to be peaceful.
After that 1,000 years, Christ leaves! So what is it?
Well, first of all, the world will end up back to
the way it was, of course.
Secondly, why did He leave? Did Satan boot Him
off the throne? Or did He just say; "I bet you liked
peace, huh? Well, psyche! No more!" ???
You see, the Futurist (and especially the Dispy)
belief simply makes no sense, when it is examined
thoroughly in the light of simple logic! :)
> ...the Kingdom of Christ exists on earth just as any great
> Christian empire might.
Really? Full of sinners and pretenders, as well as
believers? Because that is what it has been, Randy!
> Peace reigns for a thousand years, just as the Byzantine
> Empire reigned for a thousand years.
But it wasn't really "peace". There were still wars
and killing. There was still murder, stealing, adultery,
lying, cheating, et al. How does that qualify as
something Christ would set up as a physical world
of peace under His public and direct rule? What
you are describing is no better than the Mosaic
setup, which God wasn't even present for and
why would He do the same thing again?
This is what your hope entails? Christ coming down
to rule and having murders, rape and war still going
on here?
Before you say no, remember, you can't have it
both ways! You said, "just as the Byzantine Empire
reigned for a thousand years". And that is what
happened then!
So either Jesus is forcing everyone like robots to do
the right things, because not all are saved, or this is
going on. And then, after this supposed 1,000 years
of peace, for no apparent reason, He gets up and
leaves and lets the world go to pot again! Huh???
That's what you call hope?!? No thanks! (:
> Afterwards there is one final attack from Satan
And this is what I was saying! If there is indeed
this "final attack from Satan", it comes after Jesus
leaves His throne. So what happened? Did Satan
boot Jesus off of His Earthly throne? Why did Jesus
leave?! This is your hope?!?
You see Randy, this is what you're describing!
That just when there is world peace for 1,000 years
and all is well and Satan is coming and the people
are counting on Jesus to help them, He gets up
off His throne and says, "Gotta go now! Gotta
leave you in the hands of Satan, for him to really
start the killing! Cya!" and then He flies off!
Say what?!? This is your religion?! Please!!! (:
Now what do you think those people will think
of Jesus after that happens! And what kind of
Lord and God does that?! What kind of cruel
God would do that?! Hello?!
STOP THINKING YOU HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR
RELIGION AND START BEING HONEST AND
HONESTLY EXAMINE IT!!!
The problem is, that Futurists simply don't examine
what it is they believe! And when they are shown,
they still refuse to! They have been so brainwashed
into thinking that this is what the Bible says, that
they are afraid that to leave that doctrine and think
that to leave it, is to leave Christ! It isn't! It is only
to leave a false, made up doctrine that doesn't even
make sense!
>> Furthermore, when one runs across a "Messianic
>> Jew" (born again Jew), who of course, also may
>> still observe the festivals and such, those same
>> Futurist Christians actually start to attack them!
>> You see, the Futurist would rather that the Jews
>> not be saved (many of them anyway) and that
>> instead, they "get saved" only later, after the
>> supposed "1,000 year reign of Christ"!
>
> You are drawing upon the distinctions of what small
> groups of futurists may believe
No, I am not.
>> And btw, looking at #1, what difference is there
>> between "Christ" and "The Anti-Christ"?
>> Think about it... They both take over this supposed
>> "third temple" and they both rule the world and they
>> both bring "world peace" and they both leave their
>> "throne" and leave man hanging.
>> So again, realistically, what is the difference there???
>
> You make assumptions that need to be dealt with
> a portion at a time. After we have separated out
> the things that truly tie futurists together, and the
> things that truly tie dispensationalists together,
> then we can deal with some of their more
> eccentric positions.
That isn't an "eccentric position" and you know it.
And you didn't answer the question.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 3:7,10,12
7) But when He saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto
THEM, O GENERATION of vipers, who hath
warned YOU to flee from the wrath to come?
10) And NOW also the axe is laid unto the root
of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat
into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff
with unquenchable fire.
Ike E 2/9/2010
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4ge2n5hpro6u32t8h...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> You are mixing the terms. Dispensationalists believing
> in a "different set of promises" for national Israel and
> the church I agree with.
Because neither one of you know what you're talking about.
<chuckle>
First age: From righteousness to compassion.
Second age: From compassion to righteousness.
Third Age: A squared + B squared = C squared.
In other words, then the "marriage" comes, the "husband" and the "wife" will
both bring their gifts to the table to be SHARED as "ONE" with the
"man-child" yet to come.
And thus we find that the fools are engaged in yet another battle of the
wits between unarmed combatants.
Ike
Fred A Stover
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 08:33:33 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>> "Pastor Dave"
>>
>>> randy
>>>
>>>> I am against being associated with dispensationalism
>>>> for *two* reasons. One, I do not hold to two separate
>>>> dispensations for the Church and Israel.
>>
>>> It isn't "two separate dispensations for Israel
>>> and the church". That is an incorrect statement.
>>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology
>> "All dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between
>> Israel and the church, particularly as different groups who
>> receive a different set of promises.
>
> You are mixing the terms. Dispensationalists believing
> in a "different set of promises" for national Israel and
> the church I agree with.
>
> What I disagreed with, is the idea that there would be
> two different "dispensations", as if somehow they would
> be in some parallel universe, with time running one way
> for one and another way for the other, or as if time
> would freeze for one, while it ran for the other.
You have documented your ignorance of scripture well, so your confusion is
not unexpected and adds the usual touch of humor to your feeble attempts at
"reasoning."
The folks to whom salvation came first have become last. The church to whom
salvation came last is saved first at His coming: "In my Father's house are
many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a
place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again,
and receive you unto myself" (John 14:2-3).
When He gathers "His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to
the other" (Matt 24:31), He not only gathers the gospel elect church, but
also gathers the enemy-of-the-gospel elect Jews: "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. 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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take
away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes:
but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For
the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom 11:25-29)
They are gathered to Israel: "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves,
and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of
Israel" (Ezek 37:12). They accept Christ after He returns:to reign over His
kingdom as king of kings (Rev 19:11-16): "And I will pour upon the house of
David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they
shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zech.
12:10).
"They that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" (Rev
14:12) as they fulfill their debt to the law in His reign with a rod of
iron: "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology
>> "All dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between
>> Israel and the church, particularly as different groups who
>> receive a different set of promises.
> You are mixing the terms. Dispensationalists believing
> in a "different set of promises" for national Israel and
> the church I agree with.
What "terms" am I mixing up?
>> However, the idea that the Church consists only of
>> *individuals,* and not *nations,* is entirely unbiblical.
>> While it is certainly true that salvation comes to
>> individuals, the idea of a collective group of saved
>> individuals constituting a Christian nation is clearly
>> biblical, and is the very reason for which Israel
>> came into existence.
> Yes, but even in Israel, not everyone was a true believer.
That's just as true of any Christian nation. No Christian nation that ever
existed consisted purely of true spiritual Christians. Israel was designed
to be a godly nation. That never prevented a number of citizens from
refusing to abide by the rules of godliness for that nation.
> In the New Covenant, it is not about nations, but people....
The Abrahamic Covenant called for Abraham to become the "father of many
nations." According to Paul, this multitude of nations referred to the
"Church." And according to the Apostle John, the multitude constituted from
many nations represented the Church as well.
> The church is Israel, regardless of where the people
> come from.
No, the Church and Israel are not exchangeable terms. For example, today's
Israel is not the Church. Israel isn't even a Christian nation, and so the
Jewish nation is *not* part of the Church. Some citizens of Jewish ancestry
in Israel have membership in the Church. But as a *nation,* Israel is not a
Christian nation and does not belong *as a nation* to the Church.
> When the NT talks of nations, it means that people
> from all nations will be part of the church. As long
> as sin is in the world, there is no way to have a pure
> sinless, Christian nation. The U.S. is a good example
> of that. It started out as a Christian nation and look
> at it now. It is going down the tubes! (:
On the contrary, God wanted a godly nation when He called Israel into
existence, because He didn't want just godly individuals, but He also wanted
a godly society. There is no other reason for God gathering a people
together into a nation. God wanted a godly society, a relationship of many
families in a single godly society.
It is no different among Christian nations. God didn't want just Christian
individuals, but more, Christian individuals in relationship with one
another, forming economic and legal bonds under a single moral law and under
a single spirituality.
> But what use would God have for such a thing,
> if Christ was going to return and this world will
> blow up and a new one be created? Why would
> God divide it into nations, which can only breed
> differences? And why wouldn't we all have the
> same skin color? What use would there be for
> different skin colors, to breed differences?
God loves differences! He loves diversity! And in a sinful world, nations
form an important political structure by which peoples can preserve the good
and separate themselves from the evil. Nations rise and fall. When one
nation falls, another can rise. But unless nations congregate together, and
form a military alliance, they cannot protect themselves in a fallen world.
There are many dangers that require vigilance and organization.
>> I don't believe there are two separate ways to be saved.
> I didn't say you did. I said that is what Dispensationalists
> believe. Please do not confuse my statements.
You have called me a Dispensationalist! Are you now distinguishing me from
them?
>> ...the Kingdom of Christ exists on earth just as any great
>> Christian empire might.
> Really? Full of sinners and pretenders, as well as
> believers? Because that is what it has been, Randy!
Yes, during the Millennium mortal men will continue to live, albeit in
sinful bodies, but will live at peace, because devils who provoke to war
will be bound. I have no idea whether either Christ or the Church will live
here on earth in immortal bodies during this time. I'm inclined to think
not.
The important thing is, Christ will come with his glorified Church to
establish the overthrow of Satan's empire, by the testimony of Christianity.
But the recreation of the earth will not take place until the end of the
Millennium. It will be at that time that Christ and his Church will come to
dwell in one new city forever, the New Jerusalem. It will be an enormous
structure, perhaps the size of the moon!
> So either Jesus is forcing everyone like robots to do
> the right things, because not all are saved, or this is
> going on. And then, after this supposed 1,000 years
> of peace, for no apparent reason, He gets up and
> leaves and lets the world go to pot again! Huh???
> That's what you call hope?!? No thanks! (:
That's not what the book of Revelation says. It says that people do better
in the Millennium than in the Byzantine empire because Satan is bound. It is
only when Satan is once against released that people pursue global war
again.
randy
Doug
in article <aZKdnbYUuOwZhujW...@wavecable.com>:
> "Pastor Dave"
> randy
>>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology "All
>>> dispensationalists perceive a clear distinction between Israel and the
>>> church, particularly as different groups who receive a different set
>>> of promises.
>
>> You are mixing the terms. Dispensationalists believing in a "different
>> set of promises" for national Israel and the church I agree with.
>
> What "terms" am I mixing up?
>
>>> However, the idea that the Church consists only of *individuals,* and
>>> not *nations,* is entirely unbiblical. While it is certainly true that
>>> salvation comes to individuals, the idea of a collective group of
>>> saved individuals constituting a Christian nation is clearly biblical,
>>> and is the very reason for which Israel came into existence.
>
>> Yes, but even in Israel, not everyone was a true believer.
>
> That's just as true of any Christian nation.
In scripture, the only "nation" that is identified as being "Christian"
is called "the circumcision" in Colossians 2:11, "In whom also ye are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."
Also, it is called the "body of Christ," and the "heavenly Jerusalem.
[Heb. 12:22-23] On the other hand, it is said to be "trampled by
Gentiles" for 42 months. These are the people who occupy the "outer
court" [Rev. 11:2]
> No Christian nation that
> ever existed consisted purely of true spiritual Christians.
This seems very confused, because believers are those who have the faith
of Abraham, according to the NT. "Faith" can't be inherited! It does not
consist of flesh and blood. OTOH, a nation is something that exists for
many generations. To be a Christian is not simply a label, or a rite
performed at birth, etc.
> Israel was
> designed to be a godly nation. That never prevented a number of citizens
> from refusing to abide by the rules of godliness for that nation.
>
>> In the New Covenant, it is not about nations, but people....
>
> The Abrahamic Covenant called for Abraham to become the "father of many
> nations." According to Paul, this multitude of nations referred to the
> "Church." And according to the Apostle John, the multitude constituted
> from many nations represented the Church as well.
I think John depicted the church in a symbolic way, as consisting of the
12 tribes, in Rev. 7. They are the ones who are sealed, or those who have
the Spirit of God. OTOH, the multitude from many nations in the last part
of the chapter are those who go through the judgment. It's best to be in
the first group!
>
>> The church is Israel, regardless of where the people come from.
>
> No, the Church and Israel are not exchangeable terms. For example,
> today's Israel is not the Church.
The label "Israel" has been appropriated by the Jewish state, but its use
by them is blasphemous, as that label was meant for "a chosen generation,
a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should
shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into
his marvellous light." [1 Pet. 2:9] This does not apply to the Jewish
state.
Don't be fooled by those Jews!
> Israel isn't even a Christian nation,
> and so the Jewish nation is *not* part of the Church. Some citizens of
> Jewish ancestry in Israel have membership in the Church. But as a
> *nation,* Israel is not a Christian nation and does not belong *as a
> nation* to the Church.
"Israel" was the name given to Jacob, and he was a prophet, and is
included in the church's foundation, along with the other prophets, and
apostles. [Ephes. 2:19-21]
>
>> When the NT talks of nations, it means that people from all nations
>> will be part of the church. As long as sin is in the world, there is
>> no way to have a pure sinless, Christian nation. The U.S. is a good
>> example of that. It started out as a Christian nation and look at it
>> now. It is going down the tubes! (:
>
> On the contrary, God wanted a godly nation when He called Israel into
> existence, because He didn't want just godly individuals, but He also
> wanted a godly society. There is no other reason for God gathering a
> people together into a nation. God wanted a godly society, a
> relationship of many families in a single godly society.
>
> It is no different among Christian nations. God didn't want just
> Christian individuals, but more, Christian individuals in relationship
> with one another, forming economic and legal bonds under a single moral
> law and under a single spirituality.
The church is called out of the world, and in Revelation 12, it is
depicted as a woman who flees to the wilderness, like the Israelites left
Egypt, and like the people went out to the wilderness to hear John the
Baptist. The act of going to the wilderness shows their rejection of the
existing "nation" whether Egypt, or Judea. And Christians of every age
have to do similar things, or else they will be found to be worshiping
the "beast" and committing spiritual adultery. James explained it.
James 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the
world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the
world is the enemy of God.
--
Doug
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>> In the New Covenant, it is not about nations, but people....
>
> The Abrahamic Covenant called for Abraham to become
> the "father of many nations."
This is not the Abrahamic covenant and it is supposed
to be "a better covenant", remember?
>> The church is Israel, regardless of where the people
>> come from.
>
> No, the Church and Israel are not exchangeable terms.
They are now.
> For example, today's Israel is not the Church.
We are not talking about a nation called Israel
existing. Politicians do not name things according
to whatever the Bible says! And even Paul said
that the nation existed, but also that the true
Israel is the church.
What do you think Romans 9 is all about, even
when Paul says, "They are not all Israel, that
are of Israel"? Why would he say that, it Israel
were merely a national thing? No one who is
an Israelite can be "not of Israel", is Israel is
a national statement and not a statement of
the church.
And why do you think Paul said that circumcision
means nothing, if it is a national thing?
And why did he say that one is a Jew, who is
one inwardly and not outwardly, if it is about
the outwardly (national)? Hello???
And what do you think Galatians 3-4 is all about?
And what about when he calls Israel the church
in Galatians 6:15-16?!
I'm sorry, but there's way too much proof you're wrong!
>> When the NT talks of nations, it means that people
>> from all nations will be part of the church. As long
>> as sin is in the world, there is no way to have a pure
>> sinless, Christian nation. The U.S. is a good example
>> of that. It started out as a Christian nation and look
>> at it now. It is going down the tubes! (:
>
> On the contrary
No, it is correct, as far as the church is concerned.
> God wanted a godly nation when He called Israel
> into existence
Under the Mosaic Covenant, which this is not!
And that is why Paul notes that exact thing!
>> But what use would God have for such a thing,
>> if Christ was going to return and this world will
>> blow up and a new one be created? Why would
>> God divide it into nations, which can only breed
>> differences? And why wouldn't we all have the
>> same skin color? What use would there be for
>> different skin colors, to breed differences?
>
> God loves differences! He loves diversity!
So under your new "Kingdom of God", God loves
having atheists, huh? After all, you cannot deny
that not all would be saved and that means that
there will be atheists.
> And in a sinful world, nations form...
So your "Kingdom of God" world is sinful, huh?
Great hope you have there! But hey, that's what
Futurism leads to, since it places its hope in the
physical world, while hypocritically claiming to do
the opposite! (:
> The important thing is, Christ will come with his glorified
> Church to establish the overthrow of Satan's empire,
So now it is about the church? You keep shifting gears!
But that's what futurists have to do and then hypocritically
deny the inherent self-contradictions in their doctrine! (:
You keep snipping my points and then act like just saying
whatever you want means you dealt with the facts presented!
>> So either Jesus is forcing everyone like robots to do
>> the right things, because not all are saved, or this is
>> going on. And then, after this supposed 1,000 years
>> of peace, for no apparent reason, He gets up and
>> leaves and lets the world go to pot again! Huh???
>> That's what you call hope?!? No thanks! (:
>
> That's not what the book of Revelation says.
Yes it does, if Futurism is true. And why did you snip
(your M.O.) my question and comments (see below)?
> It says that people do better in the Millennium
> than in the Byzantine empire
Better??? Futurism says it will be sinless,
yet acknowledges that not everyone will
be saved, which is why I said what I did
above. You guys just don't think it through
and then when it's shown to you, you snip
away and act like you never saw it!
> because Satan is bound.
Then there shouldn't be any sin, yet there is!
> It is only when Satan is once against released
> that people pursue global war again.
And since not everyone is saved, that means that
Jesus forces them to act nice for 1,000 years!
And as I said, you did not deal with the real issue!
Futurists do believe in "The Anti-Christ" coming
and that a temple will be built and that he will
make a seven year treaty of world peace and
that he will "sit in the temple of God, as if he
is God" and that halfway through that treaty,
he will turn and persecute (Christians) and that
Christ will return and sit in the temple and will
reign for 1,000 years and will create a world
peace for that time.
Now, that being said, what does that really mean?
Again Randy, follow it through to its logical result!
Not everyone is saved for that 1,000 years, so then,
Christ must be forcing them to be peaceful.
After that 1,000 years, Christ leaves! So what is it?
Well, first of all, the world will end up back to
the way it was, of course.
Secondly, why did He leave? Did Satan boot Him
off the throne? Or did He just say; "I bet you liked
peace, huh? Well, psyche! No more!" ???
You see, the Futurist (and especially the Dispy)
belief simply makes no sense, when it is examined
thoroughly in the light of simple logic! :)
> For the dispensationalist there are two separate
> *eras* for Jewish salvation, and they may in
> the future observe the Law as a *memorial,*
> but not as a means of salvation.
If they observe the Law, then they must observe
animal sacrifices for sin, especially if a temple is
built, since that is the purpose of the temple;
to perform animal sacrifices. Look at how it
is constructed, even underneath. It must even
be purified with blood from sacrificed animals,
before it can even be used! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes."
-Norman Douglas
Ed Form
> They ain't gonna be saved. For them, it;s over
I didn't think you were a believer in death as destruction.
Ed Form
randy
"Doug"
randy
>> That's just as true of any Christian nation.
> In scripture, the only "nation" that is identified as being "Christian"
> is called "the circumcision" in Colossians 2:11, "In whom also ye are
> circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the
> body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."
There is nothing in the Scriptures about the USA, and yet that doesn't
prevent it from existing. The NT Scriptures were written when the only godly
nation on earth had been Israel. I'm sure that there had been better or
worse nations in ancient times. But the only nation on earth with a a
covenant with God had been Israel.
But now that the Christian gospel has been sent out into the world, all
nations are called to become Christian nations. And indeed there have been
many Christian nations, regardless of whether Scriptures identified them. In
fact they could not have identified them before they had come into
existence. What the Scriptures did foretell was that there would be many
Christian nations. That's why it was promised to Abrham that he would become
father of many nations. This anticipated the birth of many Christian
nations.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles
by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall
all the nations be blessed."
>> No Christian nation that
>> ever existed consisted purely of true spiritual Christians.
> This seems very confused, because believers are those who have the faith
> of Abraham, according to the NT. "Faith" can't be inherited! It does not
> consist of flesh and blood. OTOH, a nation is something that exists for
> many generations. To be a Christian is not simply a label, or a rite
> performed at birth, etc.
Don't be confused by something so naturally understood. Everybody knows what
I mean when I refer to a "Christian nation." It of course does not mean that
every individual in that nation is truly Christian. What it means is that
the government or the people or both are predominantly Christian and set up
a political system for the people that is based on Christian principles. God
never wanted individuals to live Christian lives in isolation, but rather to
live as Christians in a Christian society. It is by Christian relationships
that the value of the gospel is seen as a witness to other societies.
>> No, the Church and Israel are not exchangeable terms. For example,
>> today's Israel is not the Church.
> The label "Israel" has been appropriated by the Jewish state, but its use
> by them is blasphemous, as that label was meant for "a chosen generation,
> a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should
> shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into
> his marvellous light." [1 Pet. 2:9] This does not apply to the Jewish
> state.
> Don't be fooled by those Jews!
I'm not fooled at all. This isn't some kind of cultic name. This is a
legitimate name of a political entity representing those who have held to
the Jewish tradition for centuries. Israel is the legitimate name of their
political State. It is shameful that you should deny them a proper label for
their homeland.
>> It is no different among Christian nations. God didn't want just
>> Christian individuals, but more, Christian individuals in relationship
>> with one another, forming economic and legal bonds under a single moral
>> law and under a single spirituality.
> The church is called out of the world, and in Revelation 12, it is
> depicted as a woman who flees to the wilderness, like the Israelites left
> Egypt, and like the people went out to the wilderness to hear John the
> Baptist. The act of going to the wilderness shows their rejection of the
> existing "nation" whether Egypt, or Judea. And Christians of every age
> have to do similar things, or else they will be found to be worshiping
> the "beast" and committing spiritual adultery. James explained it.
Christians were called out from the world so as to not participate with them
in their sin. But it has nothing to do with actual isolation away from them.
1 Cor 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; 10
not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or
idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
> James 4:4
> Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the
> world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the
> world is the enemy of God.
The reason we should desire a Christian state is so that we need not live in
complete isolation. We have to avoid *sin*--not mankind. If we build a
society based on Christian principles, it will be easier to have relations
with our fellow citizens.
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> The Abrahamic Covenant called for Abraham to become
>> the "father of many nations."
> This is not the Abrahamic covenant and it is supposed
> to be "a better covenant", remember?
You have to remember that the Abrahamic covenant *included* the better
covenant. And you have to remember what made it "better." It was better
because it came to be eternal under the lordship of Jesus. His divine
spirit, his perfect spirit, made it eternal, and applied to us when we
participate in his spirit. But this covenant is what the Abrahamic Covenant
itself called for.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles
by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall
all the nations be blessed."
>> No, the Church and Israel are not exchangeable terms.
> They are now.
No, Israel today is the name of a political state in the Middle East. The
Church consists of Christian nations and Christian individuals. I believe
that one day Israel will join the community of Christian nations. And I
believe that one day many more pagan or antiChristian nations will become
Christian nations. And I certainly trust that Christian nations now falling
into apostasy and into paganism will be brought back to their Christian
roots to become Christian again. In the end I believe there will be a new
kind of Christian empire on earth, with Christ being the true emperor, the
"King of Kings."
>> For example, today's Israel is not the Church.
> We are not talking about a nation called Israel
> existing. Politicians do not name things according
> to whatever the Bible says! And even Paul said
> that the nation existed, but also that the true
> Israel is the church.
Paul said that only a Christian remnant in Israel constituted the true
Israel, out of hope that ultimately the whole nation will become a Christian
nation. Neither is it well that Christians deny the name "Israel" for the
political entity in the Middle East, anymore than we should deny Russia,
China, or India!
> And why do you think Paul said that circumcision
> means nothing, if it is a national thing?
Paul was talking about the importance of Israel's conversion to Christ, the
importance of turning to the new covenant of Christ, as opposed to relying
on only a nominal identification with Israel.
> And why did he say that one is a Jew, who is
> one inwardly and not outwardly, if it is about
> the outwardly (national)? Hello???
Nobody here is saying otherwise. Neither is it said that one who is
circumcized as a Jew nominally cannot be converted to Christ. He can remain
a citizen of Israel and be an ethnic Jew, and still convert to Christ.
By the same argument you might say that it isn't enough to be baptized as a
Christian and attend church, if you are not "born again" spiritually,
practising Christianity on a daily basis. But that doesn't mean a baptized
Christian who attends church cannot be a true spiritual Christian.
> And what about when he calls Israel the church
> in Galatians 6:15-16?!
He was talking about Israel's future destiny as a "new creation." The
Gentile Church has already entered into this inheritance together with
Israel. But Israel has only inherited it through a small Christian remnant
(thus far).
>> God wanted a godly nation when He called Israel
>> into existence
> Under the Mosaic Covenant, which this is not!
> And that is why Paul notes that exact thing!
There were times when Israel was blessed as a nation, and times when they
were cursed. This was as true under the old covenant as it is under the new
covenant. There were times when Israel joined together in one covenant under
God and experienced great victory over their enemies. It never meant that
every individual in the nation was righteous, but that there were times when
the people gathered together under one good cause. This is similarly true
for Christian nations, that in times of war Christian nations have gathered
together under a godly cause and experienced great victory.
>> God loves differences! He loves diversity!
> So under your new "Kingdom of God", God loves
> having atheists, huh? After all, you cannot deny
> that not all would be saved and that means that
> there will be atheists.
Multicultural values are good only if they are based on one Christian
spirituality. When they become an excuse for sin, they are bad. I'm not
interested in being prejudiced against nonChristian countries different than
my own because I know that God values each nation for what it has to offer
to Himself, especially when they are converted to His Christ.
> So your "Kingdom of God" world is sinful, huh?
> Great hope you have there! But hey, that's what
> Futurism leads to, since it places its hope in the
> physical world, while hypocritically claiming to do
> the opposite! (:
No, I believe in the coming Millennium there will be a Christian "empire" of
sorts, presided over by the spiritual Christ. There will nonetheless be
nonChristian nations and nonChristian individuals in Christian nations.
I don't see a problem with placing hope in a "physical world." I would worry
more about your putting faith in a "theoretical world."
> You keep snipping my points and then act like just saying
> whatever you want means you dealt with the facts presented!
I've told you a hundred times I select out the points I'm most interested in
responding to. I'm not ignoring points that I consider important to my
arguments. I'm only ignoring points that I think I've already covered in my
own positions.
>> because Satan is bound.
> Then there shouldn't be any sin, yet there is!
*You're* saying there shouldn't be any sin. The Scriptures do not say that.
The only thing Scriptures say is that Satan will be bound. Human sin
continues to exist. Satan is kept from provoking the world to international
warfare for a thousand years period of time. Nothing there about there being
no sin at all. See Zechariah 14.16-19.
> And since not everyone is saved, that means that
> Jesus forces them to act nice for 1,000 years!
Who said everyone is saved? The Scriptures seem to indicate that Israel
becomes a Christian nation as an example to all nations. There is nothing
preventing some nations from being Christian nations and some nations from
not being Christian nations.
> Futurists do believe in "The Anti-Christ" coming
> and that a temple will be built and that he will
> make a seven year treaty of world peace and
> that he will "sit in the temple of God, as if he
> is God" and that halfway through that treaty,
> he will turn and persecute (Christians) and that
> Christ will return and sit in the temple and will
> reign for 1,000 years and will create a world
> peace for that time.
As I've told you before, not all futurists believe in this scenario. So your
repeating of these arguments is bewildering to me!
> Not everyone is saved for that 1,000 years, so then,
> Christ must be forcing them to be peaceful.
NonChristian nations have lived in peace for a time, Dave!
> After that 1,000 years, Christ leaves! So what is it?
Who said Christ leaves at the end of the Millennium?
> Well, first of all, the world will end up back to
> the way it was, of course.
At the end of the Millennium, Satan is allowed to force the world into two
camps, the Christian camp and the nonChristian camp. This sets the stage for
a final judgment.
>> For the dispensationalist there are two separate
>> *eras* for Jewish salvation, and they may in
>> the future observe the Law as a *memorial,*
>> but not as a means of salvation.
> If they observe the Law, then they must observe
> animal sacrifices for sin, especially if a temple is
> built, since that is the purpose of the temple;
> to perform animal sacrifices. Look at how it
> is constructed, even underneath. It must even
> be purified with blood from sacrificed animals,
> before it can even be used! :)
I believe the Law is over with as a covenant system--has been for a very
long time! When Jews observe Sabbath or Passover today, they do so strictly
as a memorial, as a cultural ceremony. There is nothing wrong with observing
traditions in this way. The covenant system of Law is no longer in play, and
hasn't been for a very long time. And it will never again be restored.
randy
Doug
in article <XfWdne-L59wItuXW...@wavecable.com>:
> "Doug"
> randy
>>> That's just as true of any Christian nation.
>
>> In scripture, the only "nation" that is identified as being "Christian"
>> is called "the circumcision" in Colossians 2:11, "In whom also ye are
>> circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off
>> the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."
>
> There is nothing in the Scriptures about the USA, and yet that doesn't
> prevent it from existing. The NT Scriptures were written when the only
> godly nation on earth had been Israel.
The prophets spoke of a "remnant" who were "godly."
Isaiah 1:9
Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should
have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Paul also referred to this remnant, those who believed in Christ.
Romans 11:5
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to
the election of grace.
> I'm sure that there had been
> better or worse nations in ancient times. But the only nation on earth
> with a a covenant with God had been Israel.
Yes, and Gentiles who believed were "made nigh" to the commonwealth of
Israel.
Ephesians 2:12-13
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by
the blood of Christ.
>
> But now that the Christian gospel has been sent out into the world, all
> nations are called to become Christian nations. And indeed there have
> been many Christian nations, regardless of whether Scriptures identified
> them.
Does it mean there would be "Christian nations," or that believers are
all part of one nation, the true Israel?
And if there are "Christian nations" are there also "Christian towns"?
And "Christian cities"? And "Christian city councils"? and "Christian
court houses," and "Christian sewage treatment plants," and "Christian
transit systems"? "Christian navy and air force and military," etc? If
you think so, were those "Christian A-bombs" that were dropped on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And were Hitler's bombs and rockets on London in
WW2 "Christian bombs," and "Christian V2 rockets"? Likewise, those the
British sent on the Germans, would have been "Christian bombs" too,
right? The Nazis thought they were as "Christian" as anyone else, and
they were responsible for creating the Evangelical German Reich Church.
Jim Walker comments, "Under the continuing influence of the Lutheran
Court Preacher Adolf Stocker, they believed that the future of German
Lutheranism lay in obliterating the Jewish background of Christianity,
and creating a national religion based on the traditions of German
Christianity. They repeatedly stressed Luther's anti-Semitic statements."
The Nazis encouraged the churches to separate the gospel from its Jewish
background and tried to remove the church's foundation upon the apostles
and prophets, [Eph. 2:20] which is something that dispensationalism also
encourages.
> In fact they could not have identified them before they had come
> into existence. What the Scriptures did foretell was that there would be
> many Christian nations. That's why it was promised to Abrham that he
> would become father of many nations. This anticipated the birth of many
> Christian nations.
>
> Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
> Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying,
> "In you shall all the nations be blessed."
The apostle Paul goes on to show that it was through Abraham's seed,
Christ, that the nations would be blessed.
Galatians 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to
seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
And the ones who are blessed become Abraham's seed, in a spiritual sense.
Galatians 3::27-29
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
the promise.
So they are no longer Gentiles, but they are "the circumcision" as that
was a label that identified Abraham's descendants. But they were the
circumcision made without hands.
>
>>> No Christian nation that
>>> ever existed consisted purely of true spiritual Christians.
>
>> This seems very confused, because believers are those who have the
>> faith of Abraham, according to the NT. "Faith" can't be inherited! It
>> does not consist of flesh and blood. OTOH, a nation is something that
>> exists for many generations. To be a Christian is not simply a label,
>> or a rite performed at birth, etc.
>
> Don't be confused by something so naturally understood. Everybody knows
> what I mean when I refer to a "Christian nation."
Maybe so, but John says that the "beast" had "a mouth speaking great
things and blasphemies." Wasn't the label of "Christian" applied to the
Nazi regime blasphemous? And similarly it would be blasphemous to label
many other things done in the name of religion "Christian." The Crusades,
the Spanish conquest of the Americas, invasion of the Indian territories,
treatment of many aboriginal tribes by European colonists, etc.
> It of course does not
> mean that every individual in that nation is truly Christian. What it
> means is that the government or the people or both are predominantly
> Christian and set up a political system for the people that is based on
> Christian principles. God never wanted individuals to live Christian
> lives in isolation, but rather to live as Christians in a Christian
> society. It is by Christian relationships that the value of the gospel
> is seen as a witness to other societies.
>
>>> No, the Church and Israel are not exchangeable terms. For example,
>>> today's Israel is not the Church.
>
>> The label "Israel" has been appropriated by the Jewish state, but its
>> use by them is blasphemous, as that label was meant for "a chosen
>> generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that
>> ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
>> darkness into his marvellous light." [1 Pet. 2:9] This does not apply
>> to the Jewish state.
>> Don't be fooled by those Jews!
>
> I'm not fooled at all. This isn't some kind of cultic name. This is a
> legitimate name of a political entity representing those who have held
> to the Jewish tradition for centuries. Israel is the legitimate name of
> their political State. It is shameful that you should deny them a proper
> label for their homeland.
No, it isn't a legitimate name. Otherwise, scripture would not suggest it
is blasphemous. It is a shame for the Zionists to apply the label
"Israel" to their regime, and then act like murdering terrorists, as many
Jews have pointed out. IMO they fulfil John's prophecy, about the beast
that had a head with a "deadly wound" that was healed. This wound was the
destruction of Jerusalem and the state of Judea by the Romans in the
first century.
Revelation 13:3
And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly
wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Revelation 13:8
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not
written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world.
Worship of the "beast" is sin.
Revelation 14:9-12
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man
worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or
in his hand,
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out
without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb:
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they
have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and
whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the
commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
--
Doug
bear
>On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:57:51 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote
>in article <XfWdne-L59wItuXW...@wavecable.com>:
>
>> "Doug"
>> randy
>>>> That's just as true of any Christian nation.
>>
>>> In scripture, the only "nation" that is identified as being "Christian"
>>> is called "the circumcision" in Colossians 2:11, "In whom also ye are
>>> circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off
>>> the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ."
>>
>> There is nothing in the Scriptures about the USA, and yet that doesn't
>> prevent it from existing. The NT Scriptures were written when the only
>> godly nation on earth had been Israel.
>
>The prophets spoke of a "remnant" who were "godly."
>
Most if not all, of this garbage below by Doug, can be rebutted with
scripture, however, it does absolutely no good. Doug refuses to
answer any questions, he refuses to provide unadulterated scripture
proving his views, if he responds, he deletes most of everything
posted that proves him wrong, then he just goes on to the next
falsehood. Pathetic and repulsive the way Doug blasphemes God's word.
Bear
vince garcia
I'm not. I mean their chance at redemption is over. All that awaits now
is damnation
PS--ever see any harry champion 78s over there? Or can you find me some?
I love the bloke!
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
<snip word games>
>> After that 1,000 years, Christ leaves! So what is it?
>
>Who said Christ leaves at the end of the Millennium?
So He rules for 1,000 years and then just hangs around,
while Satan runs the world? Nice doctrine! (:
>> Well, first of all, the world will end up back to
>> the way it was, of course.
>
>At the end of the Millennium, Satan is allowed to force the world into two
>camps, the Christian camp and the nonChristian camp. This sets the stage for
>a final judgment.
You just make things up as you go, huh?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The apostle Peter has said that the Holy Scriptures
are not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20),
and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations.
...Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations
of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their
disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters,
as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we
modestly dissent from them when they are found to
set down things differing from, or altogether contrary
to the Scriptures.... And in the same order also we
place the decrees and canons of councils. Wherefore
we do not permit ourselves, in controversies about
religion or matters of faith, to urge our case with
only the opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils;
much less by received opinions, or by the large number
of those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription
of a long time." - Second Helvetic Confession
randy
"Doug"
randy
>> There is nothing in the Scriptures about the USA, and yet that doesn't
>> prevent it from existing. The NT Scriptures were written when the only
>> godly nation on earth had been Israel.
> The prophets spoke of a "remnant" who were "godly."
Yes, that usually had to do with a time when the nation was in decline. When
the nation was all in one accord, swearing allegiance to one cause, to their
one God, they were victorious in battle. And if you'll remember, even one
man, Achan, could hold the whole nation back from victory, as in the case of
the battle for Ai (Josh 7).
It was very important that the nation remain committed to a single way, to a
single spirituality. As the saying goes, "a little leaven leavens the whole
lump." The least amount of tolerance for compromise could lead to a serious
departure in the nation from the God of Israel. And so, God wanted to
produce a godly nation, while at the same time knowing it is not possible to
produce an entire nation of devoted disciples. At best God wished a minimum
of reverence for His ways.
>> But now that the Christian gospel has been sent out into the world, all
>> nations are called to become Christian nations. And indeed there have
>> been many Christian nations, regardless of whether Scriptures identified
>> them.
> Does it mean there would be "Christian nations," or that believers are
> all part of one nation, the true Israel?
Abraham was called to be a father of "nations." And in the book of
Revelation the Apostle John was given to see a multitude from all nations.
All through the books of the prophets God dealt with *nations*--not just
with individuals or remnants. God was interested in seeing whole nations
reformed by His truth.
> And if there are "Christian nations" are there also "Christian towns"?
> And "Christian cities"? And "Christian city councils"? and "Christian
> court houses," and "Christian sewage treatment plants," and "Christian
> transit systems"? "Christian navy and air force and military," etc? If
> you think so, were those "Christian A-bombs" that were dropped on
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And were Hitler's bombs and rockets on London in
> WW2 "Christian bombs," and "Christian V2 rockets"? Likewise, those the
> British sent on the Germans, would have been "Christian bombs" too,
> right? The Nazis thought they were as "Christian" as anyone else, and
> they were responsible for creating the Evangelical German Reich Church.
> Jim Walker comments, "Under the continuing influence of the Lutheran
> Court Preacher Adolf Stocker, they believed that the future of German
> Lutheranism lay in obliterating the Jewish background of Christianity,
> and creating a national religion based on the traditions of German
> Christianity. They repeatedly stressed Luther's anti-Semitic statements."
You're covering a lot of ground here! You start by referencing Christian
nations, and end by referring to Nazi Germany. Make up your mind who you're
talking about, and don't confuse the two! They aren't the same thing. While
it's true that Germany has been considered a Christian country, everybody
knows that the Nazis were anything but Christian!
But to answer your question, yes God wants us to use Christian bombs and
Christian military strategy. Much better than Satanic bombs designed to
promote adventurism and abuse! In the book of Zechariah God indicates
through the prophet that He even wants "holy to the Lord" inscribed on
bells! (Zech 14:20-21) And I seriously doubt you want to argue that the
angels who bring judgment in the book of Revelation represent anything other
than the *Lord's* judgment?
> Galatians 3::27-29
> For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
> neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to
> the promise.
> So they are no longer Gentiles, but they are "the circumcision" as that
> was a label that identified Abraham's descendants. But they were the
> circumcision made without hands.
Well, I don't like the term "Gentiles" either, but those of us who are
nonJews are not called "the circumcision" either. That term is reserved for
those who are physically circumcised under Jewish rites. Christians are
circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the carnal nature
in favor of the spiritual nature received from Christ.
>> Don't be confused by something so naturally understood. Everybody knows
>> what I mean when I refer to a "Christian nation."
> Maybe so, but John says that the "beast" had "a mouth speaking great
> things and blasphemies." Wasn't the label of "Christian" applied to the
> Nazi regime blasphemous? And similarly it would be blasphemous to label
> many other things done in the name of religion "Christian." The Crusades,
> the Spanish conquest of the Americas, invasion of the Indian territories,
> treatment of many aboriginal tribes by European colonists, etc.
Some of this is overdone, some not. Now is not the time to discuss all that,
but suffice it to say that not all European colonization was "evil." The
whole reason God told Israel "not to take my name in vain" was to prevent
His people from abusing the holy name they represented. Christian nations
sometimes bring dishonor on God's name. At other times, Christian nations
become a hope for the world.
>> I'm not fooled at all. This isn't some kind of cultic name. This is a
>> legitimate name of a political entity representing those who have held
>> to the Jewish tradition for centuries. Israel is the legitimate name of
>> their political State. It is shameful that you should deny them a proper
>> label for their homeland.
> No, it isn't a legitimate name. Otherwise, scripture would not suggest it
> is blasphemous. It is a shame for the Zionists to apply the label
> "Israel" to their regime, and then act like murdering terrorists, as many
> Jews have pointed out. IMO they fulfil John's prophecy, about the beast
> that had a head with a "deadly wound" that was healed. This wound was the
> destruction of Jerusalem and the state of Judea by the Romans in the
> first century.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here? Where do Scriptures claim that
"Israel" is a blasphemous term when applied to a political state? If all
you're saying is that at times Israel brought dishonor upon the name of God,
I would have to answer that God in the same place made it possible for that
nation to bring honor to the name of God by their obedience.
And quite frankly, to deny the use of *any* name for a country is ludicrous.
As for Israel, it's already an historical reality. Israel exists. So what do
you hope to prove? Do you think you'll win them to the "love of Christ" by
claiming that they are deceitful abusers of the name of "Israel?" That isn't
my idea of Christian evangelism!
>> The reason we should desire a Christian state is so that we need not
>> live in complete isolation. We have to avoid *sin*--not mankind. If we
>> build a society based on Christian principles, it will be easier to have
>> relations with our fellow citizens.
>> randy
> Worship of the "beast" is sin.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." You
should feel likewise!
randy
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>Who said Christ leaves at the end of the Millennium?
> So He rules for 1,000 years and then just hangs around,
> while Satan runs the world? Nice doctrine! (:
This is what the book of Revelations says! At the end of a thousand years
Satan is released from his restraint to allow international turmoil again.
There have been times in the past where Satan has been restrained in this
way, and it will happen again. There have been times in the past when peace
has reigned, to some extent, among nations. The Byzantine Empire experienced
warfare, but continued in existence for a thousand years. For a thousand
years Christian reign in one part of the world has already been proven
possible.
I have no idea whether Christ will remain physically on earth for this
thousand year period. I do know that he makes a physical appearance, which
in turn brings about a world-wide change on earth. He will come "as the
lightning shining from the east to the west."
After Christ's initial appearance on earth, to initiate the millennial era,
he may remain on earth or he may return to heaven. I don't know. I do
believe that Christ's reign is intended to be largely spiritual, and not
just some kind of imperial dictatorship. It is at the end of the millennium
that Satan is briefly released to allow international turmoil, until God can
determine final judgment on earth. It is at that point where the earth
becomes entirely Christian in rule, leaving all sinners in a place of
subjection in outer realms on earth. Only the saints will inhabit the new
city of Jerusalem, which will be as big as the moon, and fill the entire
space of the Middle East, extending upwards into outer space.
> You just make things up as you go, huh?
We all try to decide what the Scriptures mean in our own thinking. Whatever
is not true I'm willing to discard. What is true I trust will remain, even
though it may not be accepted by others.
randy
Ike E 2/16/2010
"Doug" <t...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:GvednXFnCsMPweXW...@sentex.net...
[snip]
> The prophets spoke of a "remnant" who were "godly."
No, the prophets spoke of a "Remnant" who WILL BE godly, as exemplified in
FIGURES from the past.
Ike
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<rkl...@wavecable.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>>>Who said Christ leaves at the end of the Millennium?
>
>> So He rules for 1,000 years and then just hangs around,
>> while Satan runs the world? Nice doctrine! (:
>
>This is what the book of Revelations says!
No it doesn't. Nor anywhere.
And please don't pretend that I've never read
the verse that you think says it. It doesn't say
what you claimed at all. Read it carefully.
And no, I won't go into it with you, because
as soon as I prove what I said to you, you
will just snip that out and then when I point
out that you are dodging the proof I posted.,
you will claim that you do not do that and
that you "only respond to what you are
interested in".
The problem is, that you ask questions
and then loose interest in any and all
statements that show you're wrong
about something.
So why should I bother? Go figure it out
for yourself. I don't care what you believe,
since you feign interest in my answer and
then snip it when it's proof that what I said
is found there, is found there.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Flowers never emit so sweet and strong a fragrance
as before a storm. When a storm approaches thee,
be as fragrant as a sweet-smelling flower."
-Jean Paul Richter
Ike E 2/16/2010
[snip]
> What do you think Romans 9 is all about, even
> when Paul says, "They are not all Israel, that
> are of Israel"?
Ehhhhh.
Wrong answer.
Yes, the fools of Dipsysensationalism say ALL Jews are "Israel," which is
patently false; but the fools of abominable Covenantalism (which the lying
Preterists, Historicists, and Idealists require) say NO Jews are "Israel."
BOTH statements are patently false, as God will bring forth a dualistic
REMNANT to RE-ESTABLISH "NATIONAL" (and linguistic, and religious, and
racial, and geographic) "ISRAEL." (It's just not the "Israel" everyone is
expecting.)
But, of course, Pester Dave et al IGNORE prophecy when it screws with their
satanic doctrines...
Zec 2:12 And the LORD shall inherit Judah HIS PORTION IN THE HOLY LAND, and
shall CHOOSE JERUSALEM AGAIN.
Tell us, Pester Dave, what part of "three times" don't you get?
Ike
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>>>>Who said Christ leaves at the end of the Millennium?
>>> So He rules for 1,000 years and then just hangs around,
>>> while Satan runs the world? Nice doctrine! (:
>>This is what the book of Revelations says!
> No it doesn't. Nor anywhere.
Satan does not rule the world during the Millennium. He is bound and unable
to provoke international warfare, as he does in the current age. At the *end
of the Millennial period* he is released to stir up warfare once again, for
a short period of time. This is what Revelation chapter 20 says.
Christ's presence is on earth during the Millennium. This doesn't mean that
sinful men have gone away, but only that sin is given less "rope" than it
now has.
randy
Fred A Stover
> "Pastor Dave" VOICE OF SATAN
You expected truth from Pastor Knave?
Have you ever noticed how often a "thousand years" appears in Rev 20?
randy
"Fred A Stover"
randy
>> Satan does not rule the world during the Millennium. He is bound and
>> unable to provoke international warfare, as he does in the current
>> age. At the *end of the Millennial period* he is released to stir up
>> warfare once again, for a short period of time. This is what
>> Revelation chapter 20 says.
>> Christ's presence is on earth during the Millennium. This doesn't
>> mean that sinful men have gone away, but only that sin is given less
>> "rope" than it now has.
> You expected truth from Pastor Knave?
> Have you ever noticed how often a "thousand years" appears in Rev 20?
At times I'm overly-optimistic, yes. But you may be right.
randy